Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the likely impact of privatisation on electricity prices; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): Competition in electricity generation and supply, combined with price control where monopolies remain, will put downward pressure on prices to the benefit of the consumer.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to see that the undoubted efficiencies arising from privatisation are passed on in the form of reduced costs and to ensure that any additional future costs arising from nuclear decommissioning are not passed on as extra costs?

Mr. Wakeham: The regulatory regime will provide for benefits to be passed on to consumers. On nuclear energy, as in the past, electricity customers will continue to pay the best estimate of the cost of the decommissioning when they purchase electricity. We have taken powers to contribute to these costs should they subsequently increase.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: With regard to the impact of privatisation on electricity prices, does the Minister understand the sense of moral outrage that there will be throughout the country at today's announcement that Lord Marshall is to receive a golden handshake of £250,000? Does the Minister agree that because of his record of advice on nuclear power and the dishonest costing of nuclear electricity, Lord Marshall's decisions and advice have cost us billions of pounds? Would it not be a suitable epitaph for Lord Marshall if the Minister had the courage to cancel the last of the pressurised water reactors and scrap Sizewell B?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government have made clear their intentions on Sizewell B. We wish to see the completion of that project. As several hon. Members know, I have today received and accepted Lord Marshall's resignation as chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board. Lord Marshall feels that in the light of my recent decisions on nuclear power he is unable to continue as chairman of the CEGB and as chairman-designate of National Power. In accepting Lord Marshall's resignation, I pay tribute to his long and distinguished career in pubic service and to his stewardship of the CEGB during the past seven years.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the low cost prices given by the CEGB in the past for nuclear electricity have now been largely discredited? In the light of that, is my right hon. Friend inclined to believe the new high cost prices for nuclear electricity that have been given in different circumstances—with the CEGB being responsible for privatised nuclear electricity—or does he think that they, too, should be treated with a pinch of salt?

Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend is aware, because he studies these things closely, the indicative prices that we


received from National Power reflected the City's perception of the financing of nuclear power. That perception made the indicative prices so high that they were unacceptable the Government. The future prices of nuclear power are at present being discussed with the Nuclear Electric company. I have no doubt that satisfactory arrangements will be made.

Mr. Barron: What exactly does the Secretary of State mean by "downward pressure on prices"? He knows that the major fuel source of electricity is British Coal and that for the past three years there has been a real reduction in the cost of that coal, with a saving in the current financial year of £850 million on the contract. However, at the same time, by Government diktat during the past two years, there has been an increase in electricity prices of 15 per cent. Given that the new contract with the generator will continue to have the benefit of that cost reduction from British Coal, which will accumulate in the third year to a saving of about £450 million, why will not the Secretary of State tell the House and consumers that electricity prices will go down as a consequence of those massive savings?

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the efforts of British Coal and its work force to stabilise the price of coal in recent years and its continued determination to do so. What I mean by downward pressure on prices is that competition in generation, which is responsible for 75 per cent. of all electricity costs, will be a force for reducing prices.

Gas Industry (Competition)

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations have been received about opening up competition in the gas industry.

Mr. Wakeham: I have received a number of representations about competition in the gas industry.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that competition is beginning to develop in the gas supply industry, as evidenced by the formation of Quadrant Gas by Shell and Esso which will undoubtedly bring price and other benefits to consumers? Against that background, how does he foresee competition developing along the lines envisaged in the Gas Act 1986?

Mr. Wakeham: Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted that new companies are beginning to compete in the market place. They include not only Quadrant Gas but Associated Gas Supplies and Kinetica Ltd. There are good prospects for producers wishing to sell gas directly to the industrial market. The Government's decision that 10 per cent. of all new gas supplies should be sold to customers other than British Gas is promoting competition. As my hon. Friend knows, the power generation sector offers a significant prospect for the early development of competition in the gas market.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree that an uncontrolled expansion of gas burning for power generation could result in an even greater escape of methane into the atmosphere than occurs at present, and that the escape of methane is an important, if not the most important, contributor to the greenhouse effect?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's latter statement is wrong. CO2 emissions are by far the biggest contributor

to the greenhouse effect. However, he is right to make that point. No form of energy generation is without its risks and problems, but gas has substantial advantages over several of its competitors.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to facilitate competition in the gas industry is to open a trunk pipeline to Europe? Will he do everything possible to bring that about?

Mr. Wakeham: At present there is no great demand for that, but there is a considerable improvement in the competitive environment for gas. I should like to see how that develops before taking further steps.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State accept that, contrary to his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), the latest estimates in the current issue of Nature are that the escape of methane into the atmosphere contributes as much as the burning of fossil fuels in power stations to the greenhouse effect?
Before the right hon. Gentleman authorises any gas burning in electricity generation, should he not get together with the 12 area boards forming the non-fossil purchasing agency, which has just missed the 1 December deadline for 1990? Before he allows the new players in gas to sell gas for electricity generation he should first make sure that the gas board has made its pipelines as gas-tight as they can be, instead of leaking 2 or 3 per cent. of the gas into the atmosphere. Secondly, he should get together with the waste disposal authorities to ensure that landfill gas is used first for conversion into electricity through small turbines. That would make a major contribution to resolving the greenhouse gas problem.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked several questions, and I am not sure that I accept most of what he said. He asked me to confirm what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said about methane, but he did not repeat what his hon. Friend had said in his question. I stand by what I said.
The full effects of all the different forms of gas emissions are not fully known and that is why the Government are encouraging the panel that is considering those matters. That is why we recently submitted evidence to it, which is available in the Library if the hon. Gentleman wants to see it.

Mr. Butler: Since privatisation, has the price of gas fallen or risen, and is that any evidence of increased competitiveness?

Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend is wise enough to know the answer to his question before he asks it, I confirm that the price of gas has fallen.

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the implication for coal burn from Scottish mines of the Government's decision to exclude nuclear power stations from their privatisation proposals.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): That will depend on commercial decisions to be taken by the South of Scotland electricity board.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister be a little more forthcoming about what is happening to coal burn? We now have only one effective Scottish pit and its future depends on securing its outlet to the Longannet power station. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that an agreement will be concluded soon between the SSEB, or what remains of it, and British Coal to ensure the continued employment of at least one deep mine coal complex in Scotland?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a great deal of competition to coal in Scotland. That competition comes not only from nuclear power, to which his question is addressed, but from gas; and the competition from gas will increase.
Recently £70 million has been invested in Longannet. I visited the pit fairly recently and morale is growing, with some reason: the pit is attaining record output per man shift and hitting good seams of coal. There is everything to play for at Longannet. Scotland has a rich diversity of fuel sources and the coal industry must compete against them.

Mr. Eadie: Will the Minister reflect on that answer? He must be well aware that in Scotland we are currently locked in a legal battle in the courts over precisely what the coal burn should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) spoke about Longannet, but I have a constituency interest in Monkton Hall colliery. That colliery is mothballed and whether it will be resuscitated depends on the coal burn and on the outcome of the present legal wrangles. Will the Minister be a bit more positive instead of standing back and saying that it is a matter of commercial decisions reached by the people involved? He should say that he will do his best to see that the legal wrangles are resolved so that we know what the coal burn will be in Scotland.

Mr. Spicer: If I followed the hon. Gentleman's advice to see that the legal wrangles were sorted out, he would accuse me of interfering in the courts. The courts are currently sitting and I understand that they will pronounce on the matter soon. We must await their decision. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to intervene in the affairs of the courts. If I did he could accuse me of intervening in the judiciary.

United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the representative of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association; and what matters were discussed.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Associations on 8 November, when a number of North sea issues were raised.

Mr. Ross: Before the Minister next meets the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, will he take time to study the evidence given by the Manufacturing Science and Finance union to Lord Cullen's inquiry on Thursday? That evidence identified that at least one offshore operator—Philips in the Hewett field—had agreed with the union to apply offshore the health and safety regulations that apply onshore. Because of the operators' determination to apply those conditions

offshore, employees' confidence in the system has increased. When the Minister next meets representatives of UKOOA, will he press the example of Philips on other United Kingdom offshore operators?

Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listen carefully to any evidence relating to safety in the North sea, and MSF and put forward many recommendations. As he will be aware, Lord Cullen is still carefully considering much of he evidence and we await his report, which will be produced some time next year. We shall then look closely at the recommendations.

Mr. Doran: In his discussions with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, has the matter of steel supplies for gas pipelines arisen? Is the Minister aware that because British Steel's refusal to invest in the plant necessary to produce the quality steel required by the industry, millions of pounds worth of orders are going abroad? Japan is the only country that makes the quality of steel necessary. Will the Minister discuss with UKOOA efforts to encourage British Steel and others? It is not within his ministerial responsibilities, but I know the efforts that his office has made to encourage investment and expenditure in the United Kingdom. Will he take responsibility for this problem and see what can be done about it?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is right; conversations certainly take place between the operators and British Steel about the possibility of obtaining more steel from British Steel. As he is probably aware, Sir Robert Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, is a member of the oil industry advisory board which discusses such matters and was present at the most recent meeting.

Nuclear Industry (Investment)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what his proposals are for the future of the nuclear industry investment programme.

Mr. Wakeham: The first priority is the successful completion of current programmes, including Sizewell B and the major projects at Sellafield. The question of Nuclear Electric building new nuclear stations will be considered in 1994.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State accept that the row over the privatisation of nuclear power has done more harm to the industry than even the Windscale fire of 1957? With the industry under attack on all sides from greens, the coal lobby, the European Parliament, the Irish Dail and a number of nations throughout the world, is it not about time that he made some far more reassuring noises about future investment in these stations?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government have made it clear that we have not abandoned nuclear power. We recognise its strategic value in diversity, security of supply and the reduction of fossil fuel emissions. As I said, Sizewell B will be completed to maintain the PWR option. The prospects for nuclear power will be reviewed in 1994. I hope that during the intervening period we can look at some of the costings of nuclear power to see whether we can reduce them.

Mr Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable dismay in the Welsh counties that faced the prospect of PWR stations at the Government's reluctance to give any compensation towards the costs that they incurred in preparing their cases against those PWR stations, which are now not being built? Will the Secretary of State reconsider the matter to see whether those local authorities can be properly compensated?

Mr. Wakeham: In such circumstances it is not normal for the Government to compensate people for, rightly, seeking representation and incurring expense while presenting their case. I should have thought that people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred would be well satisfied with the outcome; I cannot say that I was, but I had to live with those circumstances.

Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some European countries have successful private sector nuclear power stations? Is there anything to stop that happening in this country if nuclear power becomes competitive again?

Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely nothing. What I said about reviewing the option in 1994 related to Nuclear Electric, which will be a state-owned successor company to the CEGB. That company's prospects will be reviewed again in 1994, but it is perfectly open for anybody who so wishes to make the necessary planning applications if they believe that to be a sensible course of action.

Mr. Rost: Before Lord Marshall is made a scapegoat for the nuclear fiasco, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that if his advice to build PWRs had been taken 10 years before it finally was, we should probably have a family of them now producing economic electricity?

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly do not intend Lord Marshall to be made a scapegoat for anything. He is a distinguished public servant who served Governments of all types; but, as someone more significant than I has said, "Advisers advise, and Ministers decide."

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a scandal that over the past two or three decades this Government and successive Governments have been kidding the people that nuclear power is cheap, efficient and safe—and cheaper than coal? Now the truth has been blurted out: it is two or three times dearer than coal and other forms of energy. Is it not also disreputable that the Government, who have been conning the British people, should hand over £250,000 to Lord Marshall and accuse him of being a scapegoat? I know a lot of poor people in my constituency who would be happy to be called a scapegoat and handed £250,000.

Mr. Wakeham: I understand that the hon. Gentleman must have been pondering his question while I was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) a moment ago, when I said that I did not want anyone to treat Lord Marshall as a scapegoat. I paid him a well-deserved tribute and said that he was a distinguished public servant.
The hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in some parts of these matters, would be well advised to read carefully some of the evidence given—modesty forbids me to disclose who gave it—to the Select Committee on Energy last week. It was pointed out there that many economic factors in the various forms of energy generation

have changed. Oil, gas and coal are much cheaper relative to nuclear power than they were. The hon. Gentleman will be wiser when he has read that evidence.

BNFL

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what matters he has discussed with British Nuclear Fuels plc since his recent announcement on the future for nuclear power.

Mr. Wakeham: I met Mr. Harding on 16 November when we discussed a range of matters concerning the company.

Mr. Jack: The answer that my right hon. Friend gave to an earlier question on the future of the nuclear industry will be warmly welcomed by my constituents who work at BNFL's plant at Springfields and who have striven hard to improve their productivity. Can he assure me that in future negotiations with the Nuclear Electric company over the price of nuclear fuel there will be no return to cost-plus negotiating and the consequent loss of the benefits of competitive tendering in this area?

Mr. Wakeham: Those are commercial matters for BNFL and the Nuclear Electric company, but I very much share my hon. Friend's view that cost-plus contracts are not the best way forward, and I hope that proper contracts will be negotiated. I have been particularly impressed by BNFL's progress. In 1988–89 Springfields increased its exports by 25 per cent. and contributed to BNFL's record exports of £169 million.

Mr. John Evans: Has the Secretary of State discussed with BNFL or anyone else the fears of a growing number of nuclear engineers and scientists about the inherent dangers of a PWR pressure vessel collapse? Is he aware that an increasing number of our nuclear engineers are so worried about the risks involved that they believe that Sizewell B and the whole PWR programme should be abandoned?

Mr. Wakeham: That sounds like a partial account of the position. I have had no discussions with anyone on that subject. Safety is the paramount consideration at all times in the operation of nuclear power. That will continue to be so in the future, and we have an outstandingly good record.

Combined Heat and Power

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on plans to expand combined heat and power schemes.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I will continue to encourage wherever possible interest in combined heat and power. Ultimately, decisions are for the private sector.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Leicester city council and Leicester Energy Ltd. on the pioneering work that they have carried out with combined heat and power? The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the problems that have affected that scheme and will recall the meeting that took place in his office when he was kind enough to show us his collection of clockwork teddy bears. Will he join me in wishing the forthcoming new talks well and hoping for a happy conclusion? Will he give an


undertaking that if the talks do not succeed his Department will do all that it can to save this environmentally safe and cost-cutting scheme?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman reminds the House, I was delighted to be able to see him and some of his colleagues from Leicester at the beginning of the summer recess. I hope that I left him with the impression that nobody would have been happier than I if the scheme as it then was could have gone ahead. As he knows, ultimately the negotiations between the East Midlands electricity board and Leicester Energy Ltd. did not come to fruition. If further options come forward I shall certainly do what I can to facilitate them. However, in all fairness to the hon. Gentleman I must make it quite clear that there is no question of any subsidy from the taxpayer.

Mr. Rost: Should not my right hon. Friend accept, however, that if two thirds of the energy that is presently thrown out of power stations in cooling water were used for district heating in cities, it would not only save huge amounts of fossil fuel but would be environmentally beneficial? Should he not therefore consider giving combined heat and power the same sort of support that he is giving high-cost electricity from nuclear and from renewable sources?

Mr. Morrison: In the main I certainly accept the principle of what my hon. Friend says. I know that he has been a strong supporter of combined heat and power for a long time. Ultimately, the matter comes down to commercial factors. As my hon. Friend may know, in one other city, Nottingham, there is a small district heating scheme. I hope that that example can be repeated on a larger scale in other cities. As he also knows, apart from that scheme there are many combined heat and power examples in other parts of the country. In industry there are 120 and in buildings there are about 300. Therefore, I think that the idea is catching on very well.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that the best thing he could do to encourage combined heat and power schemes would be to follow the example of the Secretary of State for Energy and simply announce that the electricity boards would have to allow combined heat and power stations to be base load stations, in the same way as he has announced for nuclear power stations? If that were done, the economics of combined heat and power stations would be immediately transformed and they could produce the cheapest electricity in the system.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman puts forward an alluring and very attractive idea which would make a simple solution. However, he will understand that if I agreed with him here and now, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might find ourselves in great difficulties and my ministerial career would be quickly at an end.

Community Insulation Programme

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the community insulation programme.

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action is being taken to assist low-income households with home insulation.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend announced recently his intention to take powers for a proposed new scheme of insulation grants for low-incomes households.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that expenditure on loft insulation and pipe insulation has fallen from £32·6 million to £9·6 million this year? Is he also aware that as a result of Government cuts resources have fallen by 15 to 20 per cent? In view of that, how can he uphold the Government's intention stated in 1983 that Britain would become the most efficient energy-saving nation in Europe by 1990? With only three weeks to go, how can he manage that?

Mr. Morrison: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, the decrease has come about in part because people are not moving house at the rate that they were a year ago. In terms of general efficiency measures, if the hon. Gentleman examines the facts he will realise that the efforts of the Energy Efficiency Office over the years have been very successful. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are still significant gains to be made. The nation still spends about £40 billion per year on energy. The current estimate is that we could save up to 20 per cent. of that, which would amount to some £8,000 million. I agree with the general drive of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you disallow question No. 24 for oral answer?

Mr. Speaker: No. For many years it has been the practice that questions up to No. 25 can be linked.

Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new scheme to be introduced will improve access for low-income households, along the lines of the scheme under which 700,000 have been assisted since 1982?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend said, some 700,000 low-income households have benefited from the old scheme. I expect that when we have worked out the details of the new scheme, considerable numbers—an increase on the present level—will benefit from that scheme as well.

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the new terms and conditions of the obligation to supply subsequent to vesting day under the Electricity Act 1989.

Mr. Wakeham: Obligations to supply electricity will rest with those authorised to supply by licence or exemption under sections 5 and 6 of the Electricity Act 1989.

Mr. Smith: I thank the Minister for that interesting reply, but is it not the case that under the present model of privatisation, which is not the model passed by the House, Britain stands to become the only advanced industrialised country which does not protect the supply of electricity to the consumer? Does this not show utter contempt for British consumers and prove that privatisation is not a means to an end but a discredited end in itself?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. The area boards will continue to have an obligation to offer terms for a supply. Every customer will be able to find a supplier, and regulations


will continue to prescribe the quality and safety of supplies. Licence conditions on all suppliers will ensure current standards of security.

British Gas

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend and I met the chairman of British Gas last month when we discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.

Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister share with us his forecast, or that of the chairman of British Gas, for the future use of gas over the next 10 years in the generation of electrical power?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman has probably heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say, both in this Question Time and on previous occasions, we believe that the generation of electricity by gas will be on the increase in the next decade.

Nuclear Levy

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the level of the nuclear levy.

Mr. Wakeham: The size of the fossil fuel levy will depend on the prices negotiated for nuclear and fossil fuel electricity. These have still to be agreed.

Mr. Griffiths: What will be the upper and lower limits of the nuclear levy? How much will that cost the taxpayer and what would be the advantage to the consumer if coal-fired power stations were allowed to compete freely and on the same basis with nuclear power?

Mr. Wakeham: The cost of nuclear power is being paid for by the consumer. A fossil fuel levy, or a nuclear levy as the hon. Gentleman refers to it, will not change those arrangements. For the reasons that I gave in my original answer, I am not in a position to quote the amount of fossil fuel levy. However, the decision that I made with regard to nuclear power on 9 November will mean that the fossil fuel levy will be somewhat lower than it would otherwise have been.

Severn Barrage

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has any plans to finance the construction of a barrage across the estuary of the River Severn.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Prospects for the Severn barrage project will be reviewed on completion of the financing and organisational studies to be carried out by the Severn tidal power group.

Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that the scheme will not be delayed unnecessarily by his Department? The scheme will generate 7 per cent. of the electricity demand of England and Wales from a renewable source, allow 200,000 man years of employment during construction and create up to 30,000 additional jobs, which will tremendously boost the

south Wales economy. It will reduce the effect of the greenhouse problem and it will not create an acid rain problem. Will the Minister give us that guarantee?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I agree wholeheartedly with everything that he has said. The financing and the commercial objectives have, however, to be considered. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the sums involved in the construction of a barrage of such a magnitude are vast, and that problem is not easily overcome. Financial considerations must be addressed carefully because the cost per kilowatt hour would appear to be of considerable magnitude for the first 30 or 40 years. Subject to that, I wish the project as much of a fair wind as the hon. Gentleman does, subject to environmental and other considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

North West Arts

Mr. Jack: To ask the Minister for the Arts what funding North West Arts received in 1989–90.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The overall forecast income for the north-west arts council in 1989–90 is just over £3 million.

Mr. Jack: That was an excellent answer. My right hon. Friend will be aware at this Christmas time of the joy that can be brought to people through brass band music. I ask my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Freckleton prize brass band in my constituency, if he will do all in his power to ask North West Arts why it is not as yet giving any help to small village-based community music, such as brass bands? The Freckleton prize brass band is saying to me that my right hon. Friend should ask North West Arts to put some brass back into its band.

Mr. Luce: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in brass bands in the area that he represents. He will know that I do not take decisions in the precise allocation of funding for brass bands or any other arts. It is a matter for North West Arts and, to some extent, for the Arts Council. I hope that my hon. Friend will put his question directly to them.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise the serious threat to the provision for the arts in the north-west next year arising from the introduction of poll tax, which will make it extremely difficult for many local authorities to maintain the present level of funding? Will this not place in jeopardy financial provision for the Halle orchestra, the Mechanics arts centre and the Townelet museum and art gallery in Burnley?

Mr Luce: I have every conviction that any local authority with a pride in its arts activity will continue to have that pride. It will be directly accountable to ratepayers for whatever support it decides to give. It is interesting to reflect that in Scotland, where the community charge has been operating for several months, the level of local authority support for the arts continues at a reasonable level.

Mr. Donald Thompson: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, visiting the Terrace when seven brass bands played earlier this year, and the men, women and young people who played in those bands remember your visit


with pleasure. May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and at the risk of sounding slightly ethnic, ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for more brass for brass.

Mr. Luce: I note the enthusiasm for brass bands. I am sure that the various regional arts associations will note the views of the House.

Stolen Treasures

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has had from the Society of Antiquaries about problems of identified stolen art treasures being auctioned in sale rooms abroad; the difficulties of reacquiral of such objects by the churches and other organisations from whom they were stolen; and the need for Her Majesty's Government to satisfy article 7 of the United Nations Educational. Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention, relating to a wide definition of cultural property.

Mr. Luce: I have received a number of representations from the Society of Antiquaries on this subject.

Mr. Dalyell: I am gratified. Would that not make the Government more effective in dealing with future Icklinghams?

Mr. Luce: I appreciate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about stolen works of art, or alleged stolen works of art, and the Icklingham case of Roman bronzes is foremost in everybody's mind at the moment. I am seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on this issue tomorrow.
I have thought carefully about the UNESCO convention, but various other avenues are available to us. It is right to say that the Metropolitan police arts and antiques squad has been reconstituted. A computerised data base to index stolen art works is about to be set up. That will take place in January. The trade is already operating two codes of practice. The various procedures are fairly widespread. I remain to be convinced that the UNESCO convention, which is a fairly bureaucractic and cumbersome procedure, is the right way to deal with this difficult problem.

Mr. Cormack: As a fellow of the society, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this whole issue very carefully? It is a serious matter. As UNESCO is no longer the absolute charade that it was a few years ago, it would help enormously if my right hon. Friend would ratify the convention.

Mr. Luce: Of course I take my hon. Friend's question seriously, but there is a general point to be made. The whole question of export controls is to be reviewed under the 1992 procedure, and that will apply to works of art and the restitution of works of art. The matter can be considered in that context.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister knows that the measures that he has outlined will not secure the return of the bronzes, which are now in New York. Does he accept that he has responsibility for our heritage and, in particular, those bronzes, which were illegally excavated, illegally exported and, in effect, have been stolen from Mr. Browning, who has a good claim to them?
If the Minister is serious about the matter, will he raise it with the United States Government? Is not that the only way of ensuring that the bronzes are returned to their rightful country, Great Britain?

Mr. Luce: Of course I am serious about the issue, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the police are currently investigating the matter. There has not yet been a court case to prove that the bronzes were stolen. If there is, and if that is the conclusion, further action can be taken.

Departmental Budget

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the increase in his Department's budget for the coming three years.

Mr. Luce: Between 1989–90 and 1992–93 my Department's budget will increase by 24 per cent.

Mr. Martin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome reply. What is in his budget for an improved programme of building and maintenance for our national galleries and museums?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because one of the most important parts of my recent decision to increase the three-year funding is to put added focus on improving the fabric of our national museums and galleries to ensure that they are in good shape during the 1990s. It is a campaign of unprecedented importance and I have earmarked £180 million over the next three years to that effect.

Mr. Boyes: In this the 150th year of photography, do not the Government stand condemned for doing precious little about such a major and important historical event? Will the Minister ensure that some cash from that 24 per cent. rise in his budget goes into photography so that young photographers and galleries can do something for themselves, because the Government, typically, are doing nothing for them?

Mr. Luce: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He knows that the science museum in Bradford has an extension housing the national museum of photography, film and television. It is a major centre of great importance to the whole of the country. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that there is little support for photography. This evening I am going to the royal academy to view a major exhibition of photography. There is a great deal of support for photography throughout the country.

British Library

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister for the Arts when the British library project is expected to be completed.

Mr. Luce: The complete building will be operational by 1996, although the first main phase will be opened in 1993.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this major and exciting project underlines the Government's commitment to the arts in all their forms? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that the British museum reading room will remain open?

Mr. Luce: I can assure my hon. Friend that the round reading room, which is of historic importance, will be kept


open under the overall responsibility of the British museum after the British library has moved to the new St. Pancras building. On my hon. Friend's first question, which is of great importance, the new British library is the Government's biggest civil construction today and the biggest cultural construction of the century. There could be no better evidence of the Government's commitment to the arts and the library world than this major new centre of excellence. It will provide remarkably improved services to the reader, in much better environmental conditions, and it will all be located in one building instead of the present 18.

North West Arts

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met a representative of North West Arts; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Luce: I met the chairman of North West Arts in his other capacity as chairman of the Council of Regional Arts Associations on 25 July this year when various matters were discussed.

Mr. Fearn: Among the matters that were discussed, did the Minister talk about the allocation for the education budget that North West Arts would be allowing this time? It appears that money for education connected with the arts is being cut, and North West Arts is concerned about that. It means that children in school will not receive what they have been receiving in the past.

Mr. Luce: It is for North West Arts to decide how much work it does in that area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I are carrying out a joint study on best practice in terms of the relationship between schools and artistic activities through theatres, museums, galleries, and so on. My right hon. Friend and I attach great importance to that and hope that it will lead to enhanced arts activity in the schools.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend believe that North West Arts has sufficient funds to fund the "In your own words" project, about which I have written to him and which has achieved a great deal of international recognition?

Mr. Luce: It must be for North West Arts to give a direct answer to my hon. Friend. However, I have no doubt of the importance of this and I look forward to meeting him to discuss the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Disciplinary Action

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will specify the particular guidelines, pursuant to Official Report, 27 November, column 436, which apply to action being taken against senior civil servants who authorise the disclosure of Law Officers' advice to the Government.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Such a situation would be covered by the general guidelines in the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: Had they not been engaged in protecting their Prime Minister from being found out by the House, would not Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell have been liable to the same kind of criminal charges which, for a lesser offence, Clive Ponting faced? Once persons, however eminent, get away with these bad habits, as with Rover and the way in which the Prime Minister got rid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, do they not do the same thing again in relation to the House which, were I so indelicate as to mention it, would mean that I would be suspended until Christmas?

Mr. Luce: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not go into more detail. We have been over this time and again. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that there are detailed guidelines and he has no doubt referred to the copy that is available in the Library. On Westland, the matter has been debated on many occasions and I have nothing further to add.

Dr. Marek: Does the Minister believe that European Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan was right when he said that Messrs Ingham and Powell improperly disclosed a Law Officer's report? If the Minister believes that, why are those two people in a completely different category from anyone else in the Civil Service? The Minister at least owes civil servants an answer to that question.

Mr. Luce: As I have already said, and am delighted to say again, I have nothing further to add in relation to that case other than to say that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell are outstanding civil servants.

Central Policy Unit

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what guidance is issued to senior civil servants at attendance of meetings of the central policy unit.

Mr. Luce: Guidance on the circumstances in which civil servants may attend or participate in activities organised by outside bodies is set out in the personnel management handbook, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that, according to recent press reports, civil servants have been attending committees of the Centre for Policy Studies, a body established by Sir Keith Joseph and the Prime Minister a few years ago? Will he confirm that civil servants are at liberty to attend briefing committees of bodies that are associated with political parties?

Mr. Luce: Clear guidelines are set down as to what civil servants can and cannot do. One key criterion is whether or not a particular organisation is part of a party political organisation. That is not the case in respect of the Centre for Policy Studies. Clear guidelines lay down that if civil servants attend meetings they must show impartiality, observe the confidences of Government, and show discretion in respect of any controversial issues.

Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his contribution to the White Paper on the financing and accountability of next steps agencies. It is a great step forward in the programme for setting up agencies within Government.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the White Paper a new trading funds Bill, which will allow many of the newly constructed agencies of Government to operate within more commercial disciplines. That is good both for management and for the best use of Government resources.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister agree that this country has a long and honourable tradition of civil servants, including senior civil servants, being divorced from party politics? Is it not unfortunate that a number of civil servants, certainly those based at No. 10—Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell immediately come to mind—are very much associated in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members and in the minds of the public with a Conservative Government?

Mr. Luce: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He knows as well as I do that the Civil Service demontrates the highest standards of impartiality. There is no shadow of doubt about that. It has demonstrated that impartiality under Labour Governments as well as under the present Government.

Museums (Opening Hours)

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he has had with the Civil Service unions about museum opening hours.

Mr. Luce: I have had no discussions with Civil Service unions about museum opening hours. This is a matter for the directors and trustees of the national museums and galleries.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should encourage families to visit museums and galleries, but that all too often they are closed in the early evening, at weekends and on bank holidays, which are the very times when families could visit them? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Civil Service unions to play their part in making possible an extension of opening hours?

Mr. Luce: I am impressed by the more flexible opening hours that museums now operate. Recently, the Victoria and Albert museum, for example, reintroduced Friday opening as a result of voluntary donations. The natural history museum has extended its Sunday opening hours, closing at 6 pm instead of 1 pm, and the imperial war museum is open daily from 10 am to 6 pm. That all demonstrates greater flexibility and concern for the public interest.

Mr. Tony Banks: I associate myself with the question asked by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). Clearly one wants to encourage higher museum attendances through more flexible hours, but would not another way of doing that be to drop all admission charges, whether voluntary or mandatory. because they become a tax on knowledge?

Mr. Luce: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should involve himself in the question of museum attendances, because this year will see higher attendances at British museums than ever before in our history. A total of 100 million people will have visited our museums,

compared with 68 million four years ago. The degree of support for, and attendance at, museums is at an unprecedented level.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a private sector organisation were to carry the value of stock that is carried by the average museum, it would have to remain open all the hours that God sends, and certainly at times most convenient to the public?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right, but his remarks stray a little from the subject of the Civil Service. Museums and galleries have a large reserve of works of art, but there is more and more evidence that they lend them out to other institutions. I am doing all that I can to encourage that process.

Trade Unions

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next intends to hold discussions with representatives of Civil Service trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: I meet representatives of the Civil Service trade unions from time to time. A wide variety of matters are raised.

Mr. Skinner: Notwithstanding all the Government's recent attacks on the pay of various sections of the working class, especially the ambulance crews, will the Minister confirm to the Civil Service unions that the Government do not have a pay policy? They were elected not to have one in 1979. As the Government's official policy on devaluation is rapidly taking place—there has been a 13 per cent. reduction in the past 12 months, which probably equates to a three percentage point increase on the inflation index—will the Minister tell those unions that their pay should be increased by at least that amount, on top of the 13 per cent?

Mr. Luce: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not realise that Civil Service pay and the pay of specific groups, such as the ambulance men is the responsibility of individual Departments or for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide. I am startled that the hon. Gentleman prefaced his question by talking in class terms. Nothing is more divisive than considering public issues in terms of class and nothing could be more neolithic than the hon. Gentleman's attitude.

Civil Servants (Morale)

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on measures taken to ensure the safety and maintain the morale of civil servants at risk from terrorist activity.

Mr. Luce: There are a number of precautions in place to protect civil servants against the risk of terrorist attack. Other contingency measures are ready to be implemented if needed. It would not be in the public interest to reveal individual measures.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that Government buildings other than those of the Ministry of Defence, need protection against terrorist attacks? What will he do to reassure civil servants who work in those buildings that the Government are concerned for their safety?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is right. The first concern of Ministers must be the safety of their civil servants. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the

necessary steps are being taken to maintain a proper level of security, whether protection is provided by civil servants or by other agencies.

Storm Damage

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the storms over the weekend and on what plans he has to assist with any damage caused.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to report to the House about the violent storms that hit many coastal areas of the British Isles over the past weekend.
Tragically, it has been reported that eight people lost their lives, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing heartfelt condolences to the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives. I also extend my sympathy to those who have suffered damage to property or have been hurt.
It is apparent that the storms were severe and caused widespread damage, particularly in coastal areas. Obviously it is too soon to assess exactly how much damage has been done, the amount of work necessary and how much it will cost to put it right.
I am grateful to all the emergency and voluntary services who took part, often at great personal risk. The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies lies with local authorities. They have wide discretionary powers to spend money for such purposes under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, and they normally include an amount in their budgets to meet such contingencies. They also have the necessary local knowledge, resources and expertise to deal with such emergencies.
My hon. Friend asked whether the Government will bring additional national taxpayers' money to assist with the costs of dealing with the results of the storm. Under a model scheme designed to deal with the extraordinary costs arising from emergencies, known as the Bellwin scheme, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State provides special financial assistance to local authorities in certain exceptional circumstances. These are, in an emergency or disaster involving destruction of or danger to life or property; where, as a result, a local authority incurs expenditure on taking immediate action to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience in its area; or where those costs are not normally insurable.
The scheme has been used twice in England recently, following emergencies created by the severe weather during the winter of 1986–87 and the great storm of 1987, and once in Wales in 1987, following floods. We cannot yet tell whether the immediate emergency works necessary to deal with the aftermath of the storm will justify activating the scheme, but I have asked my officials to liaise with the local authorities whose areas have been worst affected to enable a judgment to be made as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be in touch with local authorities about arrangements there.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply and join him in thanking all the emergency services and local authorities in my area who acted so promptly in response to the flooding during the weekend. I am told that Preseli-Pembrokeshire district council dealt magnificently with the floods at Newgale,

which were shown on national television, and in which, as far as can be ascertained, we lost a police car. I must also praise the Royal Air Force at Brawdy, which airlifted people out of the Dale peninsula when they were in danger of being drowned. I am sure that the whole House joins the Minister and me in thanking those services for what they have done.
I represent a constituency with a long coast, so we have particular problems. Will specific help be given to coastal authorities in view of the severe damage that has been done? Will he consider assisting local authorities, if severe strain is put on their resources, by giving them extra help over and above that provided through the Bellwin formula?

Mr. Chope: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words about the emergency services and all those who pulled together to improve matters in his area. Coastal protection is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will examine any submissions from local authorities under the Bellwin formula.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I first offer my deepest sympathies to the families of the men who were lost in the firth of Clyde? Skipper Billy Irving was a fine professional fisherman and a member of the Clyde Fishing Association, of which I have the honour to be an honorary president. As Skipper Irving was going about his hazardous business when his vessel, the Destiny, foundered just a couple of hundred yards from Gourock, can the Minister, who is not responsible for these matters, convey to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who I am pleased to see on the Treasury Bench, the need for a fatal accident inquiry? Can he also convey to Scottish Office Ministers our anxieties about this loss?

Mr. Chope: I shall be very pleased to do that.

Mr. David Harris: On behalf of Cornish fishermen, I join those who have expressed their condolences, especially as we lost two of our fishermen just a few weeks ago. As my constituency—the Isles of Scilly and along the arc of Mount's bay—bore the brunt of the storm during the weekend, will my hon. Friend the Minister convey to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the urgent need to review coastal protection measures, especially in the Porthleven area which, as the whole nation saw on television last night, was especially badly hit by the storm? There is a need for an extension of coastal protection works and possibly a review of their extent. Will my hon. Friend kindly convey that message to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? No doubt I shall be knocking on his door very soon with local authorities.

Mr. Chope: Hon. Members are not the only people who are familiar with that part of the country. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will find solace in my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I also join in sending our condolences to the families of those whose lives were lost. We congratulate on their courage and heroism the emergency and voluntary services, not least in Cornwall and the Isle of Scilly which, as the hon. Member for St.
Ives (Mr. Harris) said, bore much of the brunt of the storms. In past occurrences, local authorities have encountered problems with getting funds through quickly enough to tackle the problems, particularly given their current financial constraints. Although I accept what the Minister said about the formula, and that it is not yet possible to ascertain whether it will come into play, will he ensure that everything is done to ensure that any funds that are needed are brought into action as quickly as possible with as few bureaucratic problems as possible?

Mr. Chope: I am happy to give the hon. Member that assurance. It is important that local authorities act now to repair the damage, without waiting for any bureaucratic procedures.

Dame Janet Fookes: Will my hon. Friend ensure that central Government make a speedy decision about what help is available, because delay adds to the uncertainties and difficulties of local authorities that are faced with the immense bill for capital works for coastal defences?

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will ensure that action is taken as quickly as possible.

Mr Harry Barnes: May I associate myself with the condolences that have been expressed, and voice my concern about the speed with which the Bellwin scheme is operated? When there was gale damage in the south of England some time ago, when we were in recess, the emergency was handled within five days, but when there was gale damage in Scotland, it was 13 weeks before the Bellwin scheme was applied. Local authorities have not applied the Bellwin scheme to many other cases which it should have covered. I am concerned that it should be applied to this case. The Minister said that the scheme covers amounts that are "not normally insurable". Is that traditionally part of the Bellwin scheme, or has it been added to it?

Mr. Chope: That has always been part of the Bellwin scheme. On the last occasion, there was a five-day gap before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to report to the House. This time, the delay has been between 24 and 36 hours. The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is why we are not able to say at this stage whether the Bellwin scheme will apply.

Mr. Anthony Steen: As the sea level is rising because of the greenhouse effect, while the Minister is working out his criteria for local authorities under the new community charge, will he give special grant to those areas with coastlines of more than so many miles? My constituency has 88 miles of coastline. Does he agree that some factor should be included in the formula so that, when such a catastrophe occurs, local authorities already have a fund which they can make available to repair any damage which occurs? For example, at Hope cove, a wall was completely destroyed, and at Blackpool sands an entire beach has disappeared.

Mr. Chope: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that emergency capital and reconstruction works can be undertaken by local authorities and the National

Rivers Authority and considered for grant by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if they meet the normal criteria, even if there is no prior approval.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that part of Lymington in my constituency was very seriously flooded, to a depth of 5 ft? Is he further aware that, thanks to the New Forest district council setting up a control post at 3.30 am on Sunday, and thanks to the tireless efforts of the police, the fire brigade and the social services, many of the problems have been resolved? Is he further aware that Hurst spit, which provides protection not only to my constituency but to all those along the Solent, has been breached in a number of places? Can he confirm that the compensation to which he referred earlier will cover that, should the district council require financial assistance?

Mr. Chope: I cannot decide at this stage whether any particular item of damage would be counted for compensation, but I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's point into account.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to give precedence to those hon. Members whose constituencies have been directly affected.

Mr. David Martin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that any funds allocated will be extra money and will not affect sanctions on local government expenditure when it is reckoned at the end of any particular financial year?

Mr. Chope: If additional money is payable under the Bellwin scheme, it will be in addition to the normal rate support grant.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend be making a statement before the House rises for the Christmas recess so that local authorities know what their financial position will be? Clearly, the decisions that they must take about what can be afforded will be related to whether the Bellwin formula will be operative.

Mr. Chope: I hope that local authorities, which budget to deal with such emergencies, will not be inhibited in making the expenditure necessary to put right the damage. We shall take a decision as quickly as possible about whether the Bellwin formula should apply. The ball is in the local authorities' court, because it is for them to make the necessary application.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why is it that one Department cannot pay local authorities, which have lost millions of pounds over the past 10 years as a result of the Government's actions, some money to help them out when there has been a disaster, because the Minister says "It is a complicated formula which will take a long time to work out," but when the Department of Energy has to find £250,000 to pay Lord Marshall a tidy sum for kidding the people—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is miles wide of the subject.

Mr. Skinner: Why do the Government have double standards—one for local authorities and another for people such as Lord Marshall?

Mr. Chope: I am afraid that it is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he should wish to bring party politics into this tragedy.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The homes of quite a number of families in Holywood in my constituency were flooded at the weekend. Extensive damage was done to homes, furnishings and personal belongings. Insurance companies will not provide rapid or adequate payment. I therefore appeal to the Government to help to mitigate the emergency in the area by ensuring that prompt compensation is made to help them until insurance companies pay out.

Mr. Chope: It is clear from the comments of hon. Members that speed of action is all-important in this case.

Mr. Tony Banks: While we do not have a seaboard in Newham—or we certainly did not have this morning when I left it—we in the inner city are concerned about the risks that people who supply us with our fish must run. At times such as this, they and their hazardous jobs are high in our minds. It was good of the Minister to praise the emergency services.
As Ministers regularly do so on occasions such as this, would it not be better to pay the emergency services, such as the ambulance workers, the money that they deserve? Will the Minister say whether all the local authorities in the south-east and in London have been fully compensated for the storm damage that he mentioned of October 1987? Certainly in the south-east, there is still much evidence of the damage that occurred on that day.

Mr. Chope: So far as I am aware, all the claims made under the Bellwin scheme for the 1987 storm have been settled. We all praise the emergency services, but it is important to remember that many people work in these circumstances for nothing—particularly, for example, those who work for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

Mr. Clive Soley: The whole House will unreservedly agree with the Minister's remarks about compassion for those who lost their lives and for their families; that goes without saying for every hon. Member. We should like to know whether the Government will discuss with insurance companies what they think is a fair assessment for people who are not covered by insurance, including local authorities. That is important, because not all risks are insurable. It falls on the Government to consult insurance companies as well as local authorities.
We are worried about charities. Hon. Members have commented on the important work of the voluntary sector. Will the Government be prepared to recognise its contribution by considering grants for it where it has cost extra money to involve itself in rescue services?
Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the emergency services—including, specifically, the ambulance service, which at times has not been given the support of management that it deserves? Now is an opportunity for the Minister to associate himself fully with the work done by the ambulance service, despite the current industrial dispute.
My final point is of immense importance—I believe that this is the first occasion when such an issue has been before the House when Conservative Member after Conservative Member has asked for extra money for the local authorities. Most Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), have spent most of their political careers working out ways in which they can cut, undermine and demoralise the power and resources of the local authorities, yet as soon as there is a bit of trouble in their constituencies, they all want the local authorities to solve it.
One answer that I did not hear the Minister give, and which I should like him to give, is in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) who put his finger on it when he asked, "If the local authorities get any money, will they later lose it?" I want a clear commitment from the Minister now that extra money will be available, not that it may be available. We understand that he cannot say how much, but we need to know that it will be available and that it will not later be taken back, as the Government have consistently taken back such money over the past 10 years, emergency or no emergency.

Mr. Chope: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman should try to make party political points on this occasion. It is common right across the House that we pay tribute to the work of the emergency services, whether the fire service, the ambulance service, the police or the voluntary organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. We genuinely appreciate their work. This Government give generous grants to the voluntary sector. We have recently announced some generous arrangements for rate relief for charities' premises. I hope that local authorities will exercise their discretion to make that relief even more generous. The Government have a good record of commitment to the voluntary services.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if any money is paid to local authorities under the Bellwin scheme, that money will belong to the local authorities and will certainly not be taken back by the Government. There would be no purpose in that. However, no decision has yet been taken on whether the Bellwin scheme applies in this case. We shall have to wait to see the submissions from the local authorities. I hope that they will bring them forward as soon as possible.

Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on local government finance in Wales. I have already made it clear that, in order to assist local authorities in Wales, I would announce the 1990–91 grant settlement before Christmas. I propose to lay the reports for 1990–91 on Wednesday; but I am today placing in the Library a paper detailing my settlement decisions. I will be sending copies of the reports and of further technical data to all Welsh local authorities on Wednesday.
In summary, the settlement provides for a realistic level of total standard spending of £2,114·5 million, well up on the equivalent figure for 1989–90. Aggregate external finance at £1,738·5 million is increased by no less than 8·6 per cent. Within this, and as compared with my provisional estimates in November, revenue support grant has been increased by a further £10·4 million to £1,141·3 million, and the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account has been reduced by the same amount to £443 million.
This is an excellent settlement. It is good for non-domestic ratepayers because a uniform poundage of 36·8p across Wales will provide the certainty and stability they have been seeking and because their contribution of £443 million, which is only 20 per cent. of local government spending, is over £10 million lower than I predicted in November.
It is good for community charge payers because it presents local authorities with an outstanding opportunity to keep community charges down. They know, and their electorate will know, that the burden of overspending is borne entirely by charge payers. This will bring realism to the local authority budgeting process.
The increase in total standard spending should allow authorities to maintain, and where appropriate to develop, services—particularly if councils achieve the efficiency savings which the Audit Commission has identified and which, commendably, they have been seeking.
There is no reason for local authorities to budget to exceed total standard spending, and no reason for the average community charge in Wales to be more than £173. This is the true measure of the excellence of this settlement for the Principality.
Charge payers will expect their councils to set their community charges in line with this settlement. They will very quickly appreciate that expenditure increases which exceed this will result in higher charges, and will wish to satisfy themselves that they are not being asked to pay the price of overspending and inefficiency. It will be for councils, particularly those whose spending exceeds their standard spending assessment and who set higher charges, to justify their decisions to their electorate.
Similarly, charge payers will not expect those councils whose spending falls below their standard spending assessment to increase their spending by more than I have allowed for if they are already efficiently providing an appropriate level of service.
I intend to introduce a scheme of community charge transitional relief, carefully tailored to reflect Welsh circumstances. For 1990–91, I am providing £20 million in grant to fund this scheme; resources will also be made available for the following two years. This scheme replaces

and improves upon the safety net that I proposed in July. It is carefully targeted and cost-effective. I have placed in the Library provisional details of the communities which may receive additional grant. The scheme is fully funded by the Government and an area safety net will not be required. This additional grant will reduce the average community charge which should be payable in Wales to about £165.
In addition, community charge rebates will be available for those on low incomes, and I urge all charge payers who may be eligible for a rebate to apply for one to their local councils. Those on the lowest incomes in Wales will actually be better off with the community charge than if they had received a 100 per cent. rebate under the old rating system.
Under this excellent settlement, central Government and non-domestic ratepayers will together finance around 85 per cent. of local government revenue expenditure in the Principality. It follows that only 15 per cent. of local government expenditure will be met by charge payers. In the light of this, charge payers have every right to expect their local councils to protect their interests by budgeting sensibly, by containing their spending to affordable levels and by keeping the community charge low.

Mr. Barry Jones: I must tell the Secretary of State that, based on the provisional figures announced at the end of November, Mr. Gwyn Davies, the chairman of the Welsh Association of District Councils and Mr. Fred Kingdom, chairman of the Welsh Counties Committee, are of the view that, to cover costs for next year, some 3 to 4 per cent. more money is needed. Is he aware that, when poll tax demands fall through letter boxes in a few months' time, people in Wales will wonder why the amount is so much higher than the £173 that he has widely publicised? The Secretary of State will try to put the blame on local councils but the buck starts, and it stops, with him and his statement today.
Does the Secretary of State not realise that the statement borders on a confidence trick? It is not an excellent statement: it is deplorable. It will destabilise rather than stabilise. There is no room for efficiency savings after 10 years of Conservative Government. Therefore, will he concede that the statement is some 3 to 4 per cent. short; that the standard poll tax will be not £173 but £210 per year; that 2 million poll tax payers in Wales will pay £30 to £40 extra per person than he says; that the valleys communities will be hit very hard; that expenditure provision is £80 million short of what councils say they need to spend, and that the revenue support grant is £40 million short? The statement ignores persistent high inflation, high interest rates, and salary and wage increases of 9 per cent. which must be funded. The Secretary of State has not found the money to do so.
Does the Secretary of State understand that, if local councils in Wales spend, on average, 4 per cent. more than the provisional allocation, the poll tax charge for two-adult families—according to the district councils, not the Opposition—might increase by 50 per cent. in Dinefwr, Llanelli, Pwllelli, Islwyn, Arfon, Merionnydd and Rhymney Valley; by 66 per cent. in Merthyr Tydfil, Lliw Valley and Neath; by 75 per cent. in Port Talbot; by 90 per cent. in Blaenau Gwent and Cynon Valley; and by 123 per cent. in the Rhondda. What have the valleys communities done to deserve such a system? This is supposed to be the season of good will, but today the


Secretary of State for Wales is implementing a deeply unpopular measure. He should know that Wales hates the whole concept of the poll tax.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the people who will benefit from the poll tax settlement will be those who occupy large, high-rateable-value houses? Has he forgotten that the transitional relief will be phased out over three years, just after the next general election? What a coincidence. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this statement will not help district councils to increase the number of environmental health officers and their back-up technical staff in a year when Wales has suffered serious outbreaks of listeria and salmonella. Yet again, he leaves our councils short in that sphere.
How can local councils step up their excellent work to encourage new industries if, as a result of the statement, they will be short of the means to create new jobs? How can our councils build new homes when they estimate that their spending will be 13 per cent. down on their current expenditure? The Government have enforced the sale of 72,000 council houses in Wales, but they have not given the councils the means to build new council homes.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman wrapped the poll tax round the necks of the Welsh people? Surely the poll tax in Wales in a Tory tax. It is the Secretary of State's tax, as he has given the poll tax to the people of Wales. Does he understand that, when the general election comes, there will be nobody behind him in support?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has come out with a long statement, most of it totally inaccurate. Without exception, all the percentages he quoted are inaccurate. Let us get one percentage absolutely correct—the one for his constituency. There, on average, the community charge will be 15 per cent. below the average domestic rate charged in the past. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to convey to his constituents the adverse effects of the settlement.
It is nonsense to say that a settlement which is 7–1 per cent. above the budgets of the local authorities for the previous year is a scandalous cut in local government expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman wants to adopt a system under which there were scandalous cuts, he will have to go back to the time when he was a Minister at the Welsh Office. In his final three years at the Welsh Office, there was a cut in real terms in the rate support grant every year. I am glad to say that, in the past four years, there has been no cut in real terms in the rate support grant.
The hon. Gentleman also said that, after 10 years of Conservative Government, there was no room for any improvements in local government efficiency. That is one of the classic quotes from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. The Audit Commission recently had meetings with the local authorities, which agreed that a host of improvements could be made in efficiency. It is deplorable that, given his responsibilities, the hon. Gentleman should suggest that local authorities in Wales should not look for further improvements.
I am delighted to say that one of the results of new business rate is that the valleys will pay £11 million less in business rates than under the present system. That is very much to their advantage, and the scheme I have announced this afternoon contains additional great advantages for those valleys. Opposition Members always cite the terrible low incomes of those in the valleys. In the Rhondda, the substantial number of people who have been

receiving 100 per cent. rebates under the rate rebate scheme will receive 130 per cent. rebates under the new scheme.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall be here to support him after the next general election. However, even his legendary skill at extracting blood from the Treasury's stony heart—which has brought such great benefits to Wales generally and ensured that the levels of poll tax in Wales will be appreciably lower than in the United Kingdom as a whole—cannot make sense of this nonsensical system for financing local government. Can it be right that a local authority such as Rhuddlan in my constituency, which has managed its affairs with skill and prudence, should find that its grant has been cut by £750,000·20 per cent. on its last year's grant? This will oblige it to increase the poll tax by 50 per cent. Does not that show that, despite my right hon. Friend's efforts to modify the effect on Wales, the system is preposterous and those who denounced it from the start were absolutely right?

Mr. Walker: I think that my hon. Friend will discover that, when local authorities study the figures and my announcement this afternoon, they will find that the figures he has given are not accurate. Instead of the average rates in Rhuddlan being £201 per adult, as they were under the rating system, they will be £199. As a result of the new system, in the other part of his constituency, the district of Colwyn—a place which has many retired people —there will be rate reductions of about 17 per cent.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Secretary of State for telling us how prosperous local government is in Wales. In that context, will he explain why each of us in rural areas meets weekly ever-increasing queues of young people who can no longer find housing in their own area? Will he explain why unmarried mothers with children whom they are looking after increasingly have to go into unsuitable halfway house accommodation where they cannot look after their children properly? Will he explain why, in the context of the prosperity of which he boasts, local authorities can no longer meet those priority housing needs?

Mr. Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that we have substantially increased expenditure on Housing for Wales, which, in turn, is substantially increasing its grant to housing associations throughout the community—that is having a considerable impact. Under the settlement, we have ensured that, under the new statutory arrangements, there will be a substantial increase in expenditure on improvement grants and the backlog of improvement grants, which are important in many rural areas.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has fought an effective and successful fight to gain a reasonable settlement for Wales as a whole, he will appreciate that I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) because together we represent the borough of Rhuddlan in this House. Is my right hon. Friend also aware of the concern in the borough of Delyn where the settlement appears to have been penalised because of the way in which it finances expenditure on industrial development?

Mr. Walker: The system that is operated in local authorities has operated for several years. It was discussed with local authority associations as to whether any change should be made, and the associations agreed that the existing system was the right one to keep. Therefore, Delyn's financing process was one that it used knowing what the past rules were and the fact that the local authority associations did not want any change in those rules.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State recognise, as he did a while ago, that our Welsh local authorities are not inefficient, but have a splendid record? Will he also recognise that the unrealistic poll tax figures which he has put out are seen by all local authorities for what they are: simply a red herring to disguise the full implications of what will undoubtedly be an unpopular policy?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman says that an increase of 7·1 per cent. on the budgets of the local authorities for last year is a red herring. However, it is a perfectly accurate assessment with which, due to the improvements in efficiency which have taken place, the Welsh authorities can certainly cope. I am delighted that in Newport the likely reduction, compared with the rating system, will be about 14 per cent. per adult.
We have not yet heard what scheme of local government finance the Opposition intend to bring in. They announced one scheme and abandoned it due to its unpopularity. Presumably, given reductions like those in Newport and Cardiff, they will not go back to the rating system. The people of Wales need to know soon exactly what the Labour party will do about local government finance.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. friend on his statement and advise him not to shout too loudly in this House about his achievements, in case our English colleagues hear exactly what the people of Wales have managed to achieve. Is it not true that in Wales 67 per cent—two thirds—of all local government expenditure comes from central Government, whereas the comparable figure in Scotland is 56 per cent. and in England only 46 per cent.? That is an excellent achievement.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that my ratepayers, who now number 50 per cent. of the electorate, will be pleased to find that in future everyone who has a vote in local elections will make some contribution to the services that they enjoy?

Mr. Walker: Certainly the average community charge in Wales will be £100 per person lower than in England or Scotland. The people of Wales should rejoice about that; it is something that I find it difficult to explain to my constituents in Worcester.

Mr. Alan Williams: Has not the Secretary of State been proved wrong yet again? Does he recollect how dismissive he was in November when he forecast a figure of £173 and I forecast one of £200? He regarded my figure as scaremongering.
The Secretary of State said that the burden of overspending would be borne entirely by the chargepayer, but is it not equally true that the burden of under-provision will also be borne entirely by the charge payer if the gap is offset by cuts? As the figure that the right

hon. Gentleman announced today—of 7 per cent.—is lower than inflation, has he not announced a formula that will mean savage cuts in Wales in the next 12 months?

Mr. Walker: In November I gave a figure of £174; I now give it as £173, which, with the rebate scheme that I have announced, will come to £165.
If the inflation rate for this year proves to be above 7·1 per cent. and if there is no improvement in efficiency, it could be argued that local authorities and charge payers will be squeezed, but that will be as nothing compared with the 8 per cent. drop in real terms that took place when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Welsh Office.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite what he has said today, the valley communities, of which Neath is one, will be especially hard hit? Is he aware that we prefer to accept what we are told by local government officials–that there will be a 3 to 4 per cent. shortfall? Is he further aware that, in a two-adult household in Neath, there will be an increase of 66 per cent. as a result of the poll tax? How does he think that we will be able to afford to pay for roads, environmental protection, schools and the promotion of jobs? Is not this testimony to what the valleys initiative has been all about?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's figure of 66 per cent. for Neath is not correct. With the interim relief, it will be much lower than he has suggested.
My answer on spending in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is: it depends. If he is arguing that will be a 3 or 4 per cent. gap, he is saying that we should be giving Neath an 11·1 per cent. increase on last year's budget—

Mr. Coleman: Yes.

Mr. Walker: If that is what is required in the hon. Gentleman's view, the people of Neath will have to see what it means and compare it with the present system, under which 85 per cent. of all local government expenditure in Wales is met either by the business community or by the Government. In no other part of the United Kingdom is only 15 per cent. of it met by the charge payers.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: But is it not true that, stripped of its gloss and technicalities, the right hon. Gentleman's statement, once interim relief is over, will mean that the real poll tax charged to working-class home-owning households in valley communities such as New Tredegar, Merthyr Vale, Aberfan and Brithdir will increase hugely as compared with the position under the present rating system?
How can the Secretary of State possibly justify that? I know that he has nothing to lose in those communities but he has gained nothing politically. However, he has a reputation to lose. He was supposed to be sensitive and caring to the needs of the valley communities, but he will destroy any reputation by implementing this inequitable system.

Mr. Walker: Without the interim relief, which makes quite a contribution in Merthyr Tydfil, the community charge would go to £167, compared with an average of £131 per adult previously. Merthyr will also have the benefit of its share of the £11 million lower rates on businesses in the valley area. There are many people in Merthyr on low incomes and they will get the benefit of


much better rebates than under the previous system. A total analysis of Merthyr shows a very good result. The total cost in Merthyr to a charge payer who does not receive any rebate at all will be £100 a year less than for people in England or Scotland.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State said that the total standard spending of £2·114 billion will be "well up" on the equivalent figure for this year. Can he tell us the percentage by which it will be up, and whether the amount was agreed with local authorities? Does he stick by the assurance which was widely broadcast in the Welsh press last month, that no one will face an increase greater than £25 a year?

Mr. Walker: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I think that I will probably have to change the figure and say that nobody will pay more than £20. However, I cannot be certain about that. That will apply in all communities designated for the relief under the system that local authority associations in Wales agreed was the best system to apply. It will also apply to people who are not in such communities, but in all communities designated for the relief it is likely that people will finish up with a maximum increase of £20. I shall try to get the exact constituency figure. It is substantial.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State agree that he seems to be brushing aside the assessment of every district council and county council in Wales of the amount that they really need? In my county of Mid Glamorgan the councils have worked out that their needs assessment is greater by about 3 per cent. than the amount to be provided by the Welsh Office. On that assessment alone, those councils will need £20 a head in poll tax more than the Welsh Office estimates. The council treasurer in the district of Ogwr, half of which I represent, has said that the figures so far provided do not take account of the fact that last year about £800,000 was taken from the reserves to maintain the services in the borough. The Welsh Office assumes that the borough can do that again this year, but it cannot.
The Welsh Office has not yet announced the new debt redemption rules, which will have an effect on the amount of poll tax that has to be levied. The Welsh Office seems to be assuming that everybody who registers for the poll tax will pay, but we know that in Scotland at least 10 per cent. did not. That has to be taken into account. Will the Secretary of State admit that, all in all, it is the Welsh Office that has got it wrong and not the local authorities in Wales?

Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will excuse me while I reply to the previous question asked by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The percentage increase is 9·4 per cent.
Under the present arrangements, I do not think that there will be a substantial increase in the borough of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). The hon. Gentleman claims that all local authorities suggest that their spending will be higher than the Government estimate. I have had the privilege of being a Member of the House for 30 years, under Governments of every complexion, and I have never known a rate support settlement under any Government being greeted by local authorities with the words, "The Government have given us exactly what we want and have agreed with our

estimates." But the worst period was under the last three years of the last Labour Government in which the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was at the Welsh Office.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Minister realise that many poor people who do not qualify for rebates, although they work on low pay and live in poor quality housing, even with transitional relief will face increases of 25 or 30 per cent. in their bills? When that transitional relief goes in two years' time, hundreds of thousands of people in Wales will find their bills doubled. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those people?

Mr. Walker: I would tell them not to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Kim Howells: The Secretary of State is no doubt aware that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has identified a number of problems, endemic to the valley communities, that will require large expenditure. These include cleaning up the environment and identifying landfill sites full of methane. How will local authorities pay the huge amounts of money that will be needed to drain such sites without the kind of increases that have already been suggested?

Mr. Walker: On the general improvement in the environment in the valleys, the total expenditure going, for example, on derelict land clearance is on an all-time, historic scale and way above any level previously achieved, and it is a committed programme for the next three years.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that all the remaining hon. Members who wish to ask a question are Front-Bench spokesmen. I ask them to have consideration for the 40 hon. Members who wish to take part in the coming debate. I should appreciate it if they were brief.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I thank the Secretary of State for Wales for the letter that he sent me today apologising for the wildly inaccurate and misleading figure that he gave me in an answer to an oral question that I asked a week ago today. Will he avoid further embarrassment for himself by revising the figure of the standard poll tax that he has given, with which every treasurer in Wales seems to disagree? Will he agree with these local authorities, which have a fine record of good value service, and say that the average ratepayer in Wales faces an increase of 20 per cent.? Or will he wait to send every poll tax payer in Wales a letter of apology because he has cruelly misled them today?

Mr. Walker: I sent the hon. Gentleman a letter that clearly stated the nature of the figures, and gave him two figures instead of the one that I had presented. I then sent a copy of that letter to the Library. To suggest, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that there was something terrible about that when the letter confirmed that the average wages in Wales and in his constituency in real terms were much higher than when the Government took over from the last Labour Government, is wrong.
I should hate the public to get a false impression from what the hon. Gentleman has said. The people of Newport will be paying less under the community charge then they were under the rating system, and I shall see that all the


electors of his constituency are circulated with these figures, so that they can compare them with those in the scare campaigns that the hon. Gentleman has conducted on the community charge.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will know that teachers' pay is well over half the education budget, and that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already announced that teachers' pay will be increased by 7·5 per cent. from 1 April next year. That figure is likely to be increased by the interim advisory committee. Therefore, how does the Secretary of State expect Welsh local authorities to manage with what is a GDP inflator of about 5 per cent. when this year, they have to make special provision for local management? How can they ensure that local management will get off on a good footing with this great burden?

Mr. Walker: The 7·1 per cent. increase in budgets—9·4 per cent. of total spending—and the potential improvement in efficiency will enable authorities to cope with the problem of teachers' pay.

Mr. Ron Davies: Why did the Secretary of State use the figure of 2 per cent. on which to base his inflation forecast?

Mr. Walker: He didn't.

Dr. John Marek: In view of the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Clywd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), and of the fact that he will inflict it on the people in Wales from next April, would he give the House two or three sentences of full, wholesome and unstinting praise of the poll tax?

Mr. Walker: Certainly. The people of Wales should be grateful for and pleased with any tax that produces the result that the people of Wales, on average, pay £100 per person less than the people of Scotland and England, and under which 85 per cent. of local government expenditure is met by the business community and Government.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Secretary of State tell the local authorities of Wales how they are supposed to make up next year for the shortfall announced over the weekend by the EC of £20 million a year, if not £25 million, in European regional development fund receipts over the next few years?
Will he explain why it is that the people of Wales are asked to choose between believing the right hon. Gentleman, who says that the 7 per cent. or 7·1 per cent. increase is okay, and non-political city treasurers like John Markham in Cardiff, who says that 11 per cent. is necessary and that the right hon. Gentleman's settlement is causing great anger in the city hall?

Mr. Walker: If there is one city in the United Kingdom that should be pleased about going over to the community charge, it is Cardiff, where it is likely to result in a 22 per cent. cut in domestic contribution. That is the largest reduction in Wales and no safety provison—[Interruption.] I look forward to making sure that the people of Cardiff recognise how lucky they have been.

Mr. Alun Michael: Will not the Secretary of State accept that many of his figures are misleading? Will he not accept also that his statement makes nonsense of consultation, and that it has been condemned by hon. Members on both sides of the House? He has stuck precisely to both the total standard spending level and the aggregate external financing level with which he started the process. The right hon. Gentleman has not listened to councillors and treasurers throughout Wales, who have explained that this level of settlement is inadequate. Will he listen to the House and accept that a standstill in local authority spending will require a level of standard poll tax of more like £210 than his £173, and that only after belt tightening? The right hon. Gentleman is the person who is introducing poll tax in Wales, and the people of Wales know that he is the person who will be responsible for the heavy level of poll tax that will be contained in the demands that fall through their letter boxes.

Mr. Walker: The manner in which the Labour party is trying to urge local authorities in Wales to go in for extravagant expenditure—[Interruption.] The Labour party says that an increase of 9·4 per cent. in total standard spending is inadequate and unreasonable and that much more should be given—that is from a party which cut rate support grant in real terms year after year when the Labour Government were in office—when the fact is that we have made a perfectly reasonable and sensible assessment. There is no reason why the community charge in Wales should not be the figure which I have given, of £173 on average.

Points of Order

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is widely expected that the ombudsman's report on the Barlow Clowes scandal will be available to hon. Members tomorrow. As you will know, the report is especially important to me as the first Member of this place to ask the ombudsman to undertake an investigation. In a letter that I have received from Sir Anthony Barrowclough, he tells me of his intention to
arrange for all 650 Members to be notified, on the day the report issues, that a copy of the report will be available for him (or her) to collect from 3.30 pm that day (from the Vote Office).
The letter also states:
I understand from the Department of Trade and Industry that the Government will be publishing its response to the report at the same time.
If the Secretary of State is to make a statement in response to the ombudsman's report simultaneously with its publication, will that not put hon. Members in difficulty? We shall presumably have to choose between obtaining the report from the Vote Office and listening to the Government's response in the Chamber. Nor will there be any opportunity even to try to influence the Government's response. Indeed, we shall not have seen the report, which has been known to Ministers for some weeks, before the Government give their response. Is there any help or guidance that you can give to the House on this important matter, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: First, I am not aware officially that a statement is to be made tomorrow. I understand, however, the difficulty which has been mentioned. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House, who is on the Government Front Bench, will have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. There may be—

Mr Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I have not finished yet.
There may be other opportunities during the week— perhaps during the Consolidated Fund debate or during the Christmas Adjournment debates—to deal with this matter.

Mr. Michael: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having received a letter similar to that referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I wrote immediately to the ombudsman and asked for sufficient copies of his letter for all my constituents who have been worrying over many months in a similar way to the constituents of my right hon. Friend. I asked the ombudsman to ensure and guarantee straight away that there would be sufficient copies so that each of my constituents could have one.
All those who have contacted me over the weekend have stressed that they want to see exactly what the ombudsman has said. They want their own copies of the report. As it appears that we cannot question individual Ministers because of the independence of the ombudsman, is there some way in which you, Mr. Speaker, on our behalf, can draw to the attention of the ombudsman the importance of Members of Parliament, who seek to serve their constituents, being provided with sufficient copies to give to indivdual constituents?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the report will be laid tomorrow, and it will then be available in the Vote Office. I am not certain that it is within my responsibilities to ensure that every constituent who has been affected should receive a copy, but no doubt sufficient copies will be available for hon. Members to pass on.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given you prior notice, through the Clerk Assistant, about the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill. The matter is urgent because the Bill begins its Committee stage tomorrow, and I well understand that a motion needs to be moved if the Bill is to be committed to a Special Standing Committee, at which there can be hearings, before we begin our discussions in Standing Committee.
This matter involves £10,000 million for the PSA and £3,000 million for the Crown Suppliers. That amounts to billions of pounds, so the matter cannot be peripheral. It is highly desirable that the Government make arrangements, as they can do very easily, to withdraw the Bill from Standing Committee and instead have two or three hearings under the Special Standing Committee procedure. The new head of the PSA should be heard, and so should the trade unions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very busy day ahead and I think that I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. The relevant motion was not moved last week when it could have been moved. Any hon. Member could have moved the motion, but that did not happen. There is nothing that I can do about it now.

Mr. Dalyell: May I explain why it was not moved? At that time, it was not clear that the Government would not answer parliamentary questions. They said the trade union evidence was tendentious, but when asked what was tendentious about it, they replied in general, and would not be specific. There needs to be a proper inquiry of two or three sessions before we discuss the Bill in Standing Committee.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may well be right hut, unhappily, the opportunity has been missed. Perhaps on future occasions what the hon. Gentleman has said about motions on the Order Paper relating to the Special Standing Committee procedure should be borne in mind. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is to serve on the Committee, so he can raise these matters when it meets.

Ms. Joyce Quin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter about which I have given you notice. It appears that today the Government have made a major and detailed statement on the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, via a written answer to a parliamentary question. They have done so despite the fact that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry asked the Minister to make a statement to the House, and despite the fact that the matter is of great interest to many hon. Members. The written answer appears to have been originally designed as an oral statement because it ends with the words, with which we are all familiar, "I commend them"—the changes—"to the House".
The privatisation of a large part of the ECGD and the weakening of our export promotion drive when Britain has a projected £20 billion trade deficit is obviously a matter of great concern to hon. Members. I wish to protest most


strongly about the statement being made in the form of a written answer rather than as an oral statement that could be properly questioned and debated.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady gave me notice of that matter. The terms of the written answer are not a matter for me. I do not know whether the final sentence that she mentioned should have been there. I fully understand the wish to the House to have numerous statements, but we have to consider the pressure on our time for debates. Today, no fewer than 40 right hon. and hon. Members seek to participate, and if we have numerous points of order, some will, I fear be disappointed.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench spokesman and he ought to have some regard for his colleagues.

Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The non-statement to the House involves 770 jobs in Cardiff. I seek your guidance, as a somewhat unusual device was used. At 12.15 pm today, an officer in the private office of the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry attempted to buy off the demand for a statement by asking hon. Members representing south Wales with an interest in the 770 jobs at the ECGD insurance services group in Cardiff to attend a meeting at his department at 4.30 this afternoon. That is a revolutionary way of conducting government, as I had always understood that this House was the Parliament of the British people.

Mr. Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is also a Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Michael: The trouble is that it is disgraceful to have decisions thrown at us in this way. I do not like taking up the time of the House any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). If the Government were not trying to scrap jobs, ignore hon. Members on both sides of the House, ignore the firms which want the ECGD to continue in existence, and ignore the chamber of commerce and all the advice, we would not have to waste the House's time with points of order. I hope that the Government's attention can be drawn to that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not a matter for me whether oral statements are made. However, I am sure that those who are responsible will have heard what has been said.

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I repeat that there is great pressure to participate in the debate. I therefore propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 and 8 o' clock. I hope that those hon. Members who are called before that, and certainly those afterwards, will bear the limit in mind as it will enable the Chair to call more of the hon. Members who wish to participate in this important debate.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who hopes to be called outside that period, may I ask whether it would not be better and fairer for all, since a large number of hon. Members wish to speak, if the limit on speeches was from 6 to 9 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, that is perhaps a consummation devoutly to be wished, but it is not within my power.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
The Bill owes a great deal to the excellent report on the future of broadcasting that the Select Committee on Home Affairs published in June last year. The report recognised that British broadcasting has a rich tradition with great achievements to its credit, and so does the Bill.
One thing that the Bill does not do is mark the demise of public service broadcasting. The programming remits of BBC1, BBC2, Radios 1 to 4 and BBC local radio will not be touched in any way by the Bill. Channel 4 in addition to its public service obligations, will continue to be required, as now, to be innovative and distinctive, and to cater for tastes and interests not adequately met by Channel 3. Channel 4 will become responsible for the sale of its own advertising time, but financial underpinning will be there if necessary. The Welsh fourth channel will also continue with its successful programme remit. Three of the four terrestrial channels will thus have the same programming obligations as now. Channel 3, however, will also be expected to continue to produce good programmes, as will Channel 5. When our proposals are outlined, I do not believe for a moment that anyone will be able to argue, other than tongue in cheek, that we are creating a "philistines' charter" or "yob television".
The Bill provides a sensible regulatory framework for a new age in broadcasting in which technological change has brought vastly increased choice. It points no accusing finger at the conscientious way in which the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the Cable Authority have done their jobs under the Broadcasting Act 1981 and the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, but those measures are simply out of date.
Since the publication of the White Paper, we have taken account of a wide range of views. On important issues—ranging from the quality tests and the licence allocation


procedure to the night hours and the ownership rules—we have made substantial changes, but the basic principles on which the Bill is constructed remain.
First, we want viewers and listeners to enjoy the increased choice that is now possible. Therefore the Bill authorises Channel 5, three new national radio services, local multi-channel franchises able to use microwave as well as, or instead of, cable, and many new local and community radio stations. We do not know precisely how fast broadcasting will expand, but expansion there will certainly be—and the legislation must cater for it.
The appetite for a much wider choice of local radio stations is clear. When the IBA recently offered a further 23 local radio contracts, the scheme attracted no fewer than 540 letters of intent, with little indication that all that the promoters wanted was pop and more pop. Under the future arrangements, new stations will cater for a wide range of tastes, from jazz to classical music. They will reflect the interests of neighbourhoods, of ethnic minority groups, and of other communities of interest—and there will be three new national independent radio channels.
Secondly, the Bill fully recognises that aspects such as programme quality and diversity, regional links, healthy and widespread ownership of broadcasting companies and proper geographical coverage cannot simply be left to take care of themselves. It therefore provides sharply focused statutory safeguards for all of them. It also incorporates a wider and more flexible set of enforcement sanctions, including financial penalties and performance bonds.
Thirdly, the Bill acknowledges that television and radio are powerful media with potential—if abused—to offend, exploit and cause harm. It therefore contains safeguards for programme standards on taste, decency, accuracy and balance—and extends them to all United Kingdom based broadcasters. It removes the broadcasters' exemptions from the law of obscenity and incitement to racial hatred, and it establishes a key role for the Broadcasting Standards Council in overseeing standards of taste and decency. It also implements the Council of Europe convention and the EC directive. Those instruments contain enforcement mechanisms that the United Kingdom can activate against broadcasts originating in other European countries where programmes are pornographic or glamorise violence. The Bill also provides draconian sanctions against those who support unacceptable foreign satellite services receivable here.
Many points will arise in the debate, but there are three key matters with which I ought to deal now. They are competitive tender, ownership and quality.
Our proposal that Channel 3, Channel 5 and certain other licences should be allocated by competitive tender has two main objectives. First, we want to establish a fairer and more objective system for awarding franchises than the present one, which has few defenders, but at the same time to ensure high standards and diversity. Secondly, we have a clear duty, which some campaigners gloss over far too quickly, to ensure that the taxpayer gets a proper return for the use of the valuable and scarce national resources constitued by broadcasting rights and, in particular, the use of the frequency spectrum.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Home Secretary used the phrase "gloss over". Will he give one concrete example of what he means by that?

Mr. Waddington: I mean that if the state is to allot to certain persons a valuable legal right, the state is entitled to claim in exchange a return for the taxpayer. One is not talking about the right of individuals but about claiming for the taxpayer a return on the valuable rights allotted by Government.

Mr. Tony Banks: Would not the taxpayer derive more benefit from the auctioning off of those national resources if the money raised were invested in programme production and training? That would represent better value for the taxpayer than the Treasury amassing more and more money that it cannot spend for fear of inflation.

Mr. Waddington: I do not accept that argument for one moment. A person entering into the bidding process will have very much in mind what he can afford to pay. He will therefore pay the proper price for the valuable right that he is given. That will be fair both to him and to the taxpayer.
If we are to enjoy high standards and diversity, there must be ownership rules. The Bill includes in schedule 2 much clearer and more extensive ownership rules than anything that we have now. There is no chance whatsoever of British broadcasting falling into the hands of a bunch of tycoons or a cluster of conglomerates. To prevent that, the Bill provides the means for implementing the limits on ownership which were clearly set out by my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in his announcement of 19 May.
Non-EC ownership will largely be prohibited. National newspapers will not be permitted to hold more than a 20 per cent. stake in a direct broadcasting satellite channel, Channel 3, Channel 5 or national radio licensee. Satellite channels targeted at the United Kingdom, whether based here or abroad, will be subject to a similar 20 per cent. restriction on interests in those other licensees.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that a newspaper proprietor, for example, who already owns three or four newspapers but only one football club—that is the kind of society in which we live, where the Government are more concerned about football clubs than about the media—will be able to exercise formidable power and control with 20 per cent. share ownership? That is particularly true when one considers that the Prime Minister has only a 5 per cent. interest in the Cabinet, as one of 20 members, but she still runs it.

Mr. Waddington: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in deciding on those restrictions the Government addressed their mind carefully to the need to ensure that national newspapers would not be subject to the degree of influence and control that he fears.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary stated categorically that all satellite broadcasters, whether based in this country or abroad, would be subject to the 20 per cent. newspaper ownership rule, but he knows very well that no such provision appears in the Bill. The Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), stated at his press conference that Sky Television would not be subject to such a restriction because it had already invested so much money in the United Kingdom. The Minister of State appears to rule out Sky from that criterion, but may we be clear whether or not it is subject to the 20 per cent. national newspaper ownership rule?

Mr. Waddington: Satellite broadcasters other than direct broadcasting satellite channels will not be able to have an investment greater than 20 per cent. in other channels. I refer to satellite broadcasters other than DBS broadcasters. I thought that that was the matter of concern to the right hon. Gentleman. Non-DBS broadcasters will not be able to make an investment of more than 20 per cent. in another broadcasting channel.

Mr. Hattersley: The 20 per cent. newspaper ownership rule applies also in respect of Channel 3 and Channel 5, but does it apply to satellite channels?

Mr. Waddington: My understanding is—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked for a reply. If he does not like the reply that he gets he can pursue the matter later. If he wants the matter amplified, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will amplify it in his reply later today.
I have told the right hon. Gentleman what I understand to be the position—that concentration of ownership will be kept in check, and that no one will be allowed to own even the proposed maximum of two regional Channel 3 lincences if both are large or if they are contiguous. That provision can be waived only when one or two contiguous franchises become clearly unviable, and only then when separate regional programming for each of the two areas will be maintained.

Mr. Eric Martlew: At a recent meeting with local authorities and an all-party delegation from the Border Television area, the Home Secretary gave an assurance that they would not be allowed two franchises which are parallel and which have common boundaries. That assurance is not in the Bill. Will the Minister clarify that today?

Mr. Waddington: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I have made it absolutely plain that it will be possible to own two franchises, but not if they are both large, or if they are contiguous.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister has talked about ownership percentages. Did he notice that the Minister of State, in his statement, defended the Government's position on the rules on cross-media ownership, but said that it would not apply to Rupert Murdoch's Sky Television, because that venture was already running and had cost Mr. Murdoch "vast amounts of money"? If that is the case, how will the Government cope with over-monopolisation of the media?

Mr. Waddington: I am beginning to understand why the right hon. Gentleman for Sparkbrook is so upset. We are talking about two different things. It is perfectly correct that there is a limit of 20 per cent. on ownership in DBS and that there is no limit of 20 per cent. in non-DBS satellite channels. That is right, because DBS channels represent the allotment of valuable rights, given to the Government by international agreement. There is enormous potential for a large number of non-DBS satellite channels, but only five DBS channels have been allowed as a result of international agreement.
I now understand what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was talking about. I was talking about something entirely different. I pointed out that satellite broadcasters other than DBS broadcasters cannot have more than the 20 per cent. investment in DBS or any other

broadcast channels. Now that we have that absolutely plain—[Interruption.] It was the right hon. Gentleman who—

Mr. Hattersley: As I know that the Home Secretary likes to speak in plain language—there is none plainer—I will ask him the simplest question. Is he saying that Sky Television and Mr. Murdoch are alone in not having any reservations or limitations placed on what newspapers they own?

Mr. Waddington: That is absolutely untrue. The Bill will apply to all satellite broadcasters other than DBS. I have explained the present situation in words of one syllable. Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand it, I am sure that everyone else can.
The order-making power in schedule 2 will also be used to ensure that no one person is allowed to gain control of the six largest local radio stations. Even though there could be 200 to 300 independent stations by the end of the 1990s, control of the six largest would still give a person too much dominance—almost a network by the back door —so there will be supplementary limits.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it correct that the Bill excludes church and religious bodies from having a full say on this? Will they be able to enter the television and broadcasting arena?

Mr. Waddington: Church bodies cannot own television channels. A similar prohibition exists today, and I think that that accords with the wishes of most people.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given the moral decline in Britain, and the considerably greater church attendance in the United States, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there could be a case for allowing the Church to own channels so that religious broadcasting is not left entirely in the hands of a small clique?

Mr. Waddington: We have reached a sensible middle way, because Church organisations will be able to own radio channels. I doubt whether the majority of people wish us to go back on a system which has operated since the introduction of independent television and allow those organisations to own independent television channels.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the past 12 or 13 years there has been an agreement that certain national events—the cup final, the Derby and Wimbledon—should not be exclusive to one channel and would be available for widespread broadcasting? Will he give an assurance that the Bill would not allow those national events, to be bought exclusively by, for instance, Sky Television, which could charge for them?

Mr. Waddington: The Bill will continue to provide protection for major events, and no broadcaster will be permitted to show listed events on a pay-per-view basis.
I urge hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that it is an extraordinary view of the promoters of the events if it is believed that they will wish to sell the rights in the full knowledge that the events will be shown only to a minority of people in Britain.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his generosity in giving way. He will understand the importance of watching sport


to many people, in particular the elderly and the housebound. It is essential that they are not prevented from watching by some arrangement—not necessarily pay television, which I appreciate is ruled out—which means that ITV or the BBC, the national networks, are priced out of showing major events such as the cup final, the grand national and Wimbledon. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that that will not happen?

Mr. Waddington: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows what Mr. David Broomfield, the press officer of the Football Association, said yesterday:
However, we are conscious that the Cup final is an important international happening, and it is therefore unlikely that we will see the day whereby it was broadcast only on satellite television.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the problems is that existing broadcasters have simply been downright stingy about the amount of money that they are prepared to pay? A little competition will help them to stump up well-deserved money for national games such as football and cricket.

Mr. Waddington: One hears little about the rights of promoters in all these arguments. One hears only about the rights of television companies. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for restoring some balance.
The quality debate raises the most important questions of all. Here, hon. Members agree, I think, that we must take extra care to distinguish genuine argument from the voice of vested interest, especially as this voice is sometimes subtle and seductive rather than shrill. It is not unfair to point out that the present franchise holders are not there just for the love of it—they are there to make money and they are very successful in that aim. That does not mean that they do not deserve a fair hearing or that they do not wish to provide a good service—I am sure that they do—but some of the hyperbole that has been used should perhaps be discounted.

Mr. George Walden: Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend paid tribute to the high standard of British broadcasting. The Bill requires a "sufficient amount of time" to be given to programmes of quality. That is an expression of ardent idealism which reflects the spirit of mediocrity in which the Government are engaged. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that such language will encourage quality, or will it feed the fears that I and many of my hon. Friends have that, when he talks of an auction and a franchise, what will come out will be not so much a quality hurdle as a limbo dancer?

Mr. Waddington: I cannot agree with a word of what my hon. Friend says. He seems to overlook the fact that the words of which he complains are remarkably similar to those in the present broadcasting legislation. It is also a distortion to talk as though the only requirement which has to be met to pass the quality threshold is the requirement that there must be sufficient programmes of high quality. That is only one of the requirements which have to be met. First, the plans have to cater for a wide range of tastes and interests. Secondly, there will have to be high quality news and current affairs. Thirdly, there will have to be regional programmes, and some of them will have to be made in the regions. Fourthly, 25 per cent. of the programmes will have to be made independently.

Fifthly, consumer protection requirements will safeguard taste, decency, accuracy and balance. That is a lot more than my hon. Friend suggested.
Before an organisation is able to bid for a Channel 3 or Channel 5 franchise, it will have to pass a quality threshold. The chairman of the IBA, and chairman-designate of the ITC, Mr. George Russell, has described that quality threshold as a Becher's brook, and he is quite right. Those who wish to be franchise holders will have to provide diverse programme services which are calculated to appeal to a wide range of tastes and interests. They will have to give the viewer high quality news and current affairs programmes. There will have to be a sufficient amount of other programmes of high quality. A proper proportion of the material must be British or from other European countries. At least 25 per cent. of qualifying programmes must be made by independent producers. Channel 3 will be required to show regional programmes, including programmes produced in the region. Between them, Channels 3, 4 and 5 must also cater adequately for schools programmes.
Furthermore, even if a company gets through the quality threshold, the ITC will have power in exceptional circumstance to accept other than the highest bid. If it were possible to spell out all the circumstances which might be considered exceptional, we would do so, but I do not believe that it is. If the ITC uses the power, however, it will have to state and justify its reasons.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Nowhere in that list is there any definition of children's programmes, the times at which they should be shown or the percentage of them which will be other than schools material. Television is one of the most vital ways in which children receive stimulation and it is crucial that they should continue to receive high-quality programmes. Will the Home Secretary undertake to write such a requirement into the Bill?

Mr. Waddington: It is almost inconceivable that a person would pass the diversity and catering for a wider range of tastes and interests requirements if he put nothing in his schedules in the way of children's programmes. [HON. MEMBERS:"Where does the Bill say that?"] There is nothing in the present legislation either. When broadcasting legislation was last considered, the House turned its back on the idea of long lists of requirements, so why should one be considered necessary now? For a bidder to pass the quality test, the ITC will have to be satisfied that his plans will cater for a wide range of tastes and interests.

Mrs. Ray Michie: The Secretary of State talks about quality requirements, but can he explain to the House and to the people of Scotland why there is no mention of Gaelic broadcasting in the Bill, especially when we have heard so many discussions about it in the past year and as his predecessor promised in June that proposals for Gaelic broadcasting would be presented? The people of Scotland are disgusted at the whole performance.

Mr. Waddington: I am delighted with the hon. Lady's intervention, and I have some good news for her if she will contain herself for a moment or two.
Channel 3 and Channel 5 are intended to be popular, mass audience channels. We should not try to turn them into new versions of Channel 4 and BBC2. Nevertheless, the requirements that I have outlined are exacting and are


hardly a prescription for yob television. Indeed, the safeguards are greater than those which exist at present. Where, for instance, are the powers now to find franchise holders, or to require them to put up substantial performance bonds as a guarantee that they will live up to their programme promises? The ITC will have far more extensive enforcement powers than the IBA, one of whose problems has been that it has had few sanctions at its disposal short of the nuclear weapon of licence revocation.
Some people hanker for a detailed definition of quality, but frankly I do not think that that is on. The ITC will be able to issue illustrative guidelines, but it will not issue a blueprint—rightly so, as there is no single right way to pass, for instance, the diversity test. The winning applicant's detailed programme promises will, however, be incorporated into the licence conditions. There will be a clear commitment to quality, capable of rigorous enforcement.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Does the Home Secretary agree with the Minister of State that parts of the Bill are not set in stone? Is he prepared to reconsider the basis of Channel 5 and the suggestion made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs report of a national channel made up of local affiliates?

Mr. Waddington: No. I believe that our arrangements for Channel 5 are exactly right.
Already there have been demands for all sorts of additional statutory requirements for programming, but if we were to give way to all the demands of the various lobbies and special interests, the new legislation would finish up far more onerous and prescriptive than the old. As long ago as 1954, Parliament wisely rejected the list approach. Those who seek guarantees for, for instance, religious or children's programmes, can take comfort from the multiplication of outlets as channels increase and from the diversity requirement on both Channel 3 and Channel 5. I imagine that the ITC would take some convincing that a service which did not offer any programmes of that kind was genuinely diverse, but this is also where the complementary nature of Channel 4's remit comes in. In addition to its public service obligations, it will continue to be required to cater for any tastes and interests not adequately met by Channel 3 and 5.
I wish to concentrate on key topics rather than go through the Bill clause by clause, so I will give no more than a brief guide to its structure. Part I establishes the Independent Television Commission in place of the IBA and the Cable Authority. Both George Russell and I want a smooth transition and maximum continuity of expertise. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, I will announce shortly the setting up of the ITC and the Radio Authority in shadow form.
Part I also deals with the regulation of Channels 3, 4 and 5, Channel 4, Wales, satellite services, and services using the spare capacity of signals such as teletext. It requires the ITC, among other things, to issue codes on how the due impartiality requirement is to be applied, on programme standards more generally and on advertising and sponsorship. Part I also includes requirements for schools programmes and subtitling for the deaf.
Part II deals with local delivery services—local multi-channel franchises using cable and/or microwave transmission. [Interruption.]

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members are trying to listen to the excellent exposition by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. We cannot hear because of the bunch of yobboes on the Opposition Benches below the Gangway—[Interruption.] Could they please be asked to be silent?

Mr. Waddington: It would be a pity if they went out of here as ignorant as they came in. It might be to their advantage to listen.
Among other things, part II makes local delivery operators responsible themselves for the content of any foreign services which they carry from countries outside the EC and the Council of Europe.
Part III establishes a new Radio Authority in place of the IBA radio division, and deals with the regulation of national, local, satellite, cable and institutional radio services, and with spare capacity services using radio signals. The key requirement in this part is that radio should expand in such a way as to increase choice for the listener.
Part IV re-enacts the provisions dealing with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and part V puts the Broadcasting Standards Council on a statutory basis. Part VI applies the law of obscenity, incitement to racial hatred and defamation to all British broadcasting services.
Part VII substantially strengthens the powers and penalties available against pirate broadcasting. Part VIII contains the new offences of supporting an unacceptable foreign satellite service, and deals with miscellaneous matters such as listed sporting events and transfer to the BBC of responsibility for collecting the licence fee.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House the good news for which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was waiting. At a later stage we shall be bringing forward provisions on Gaelic broadcasting. These will be based on a Gaelic television production fund, to be paid for by the Exchequer and administered by a committee of the ITC. The fund will commission the production of programmes in the Gaelic language. We plan that the ITC should have power to require relevant Channel 3 licensees to show Gaelic programming. The programmes would be made either by broadcasters or by independent producers. We intend that the fund should be able to finance 200 hours of Gaelic programmes a year in addition to the present 100 hours, which we would expect the BBC and the relevant Channel 3 companies to maintain.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Home Secretary will appreciate that many representatives of all parties have campaigned long and hard on that issue. How did he decide on the sum of £;8 million? He mentioned a committee of the ITC. What direct representation from the Gaelic community will there be on that committee? Token Gaelic representation is insufficient, as we want those people to have real clout.

Mr. Waddington: A number of those matters are open to discussion. The hon. Lady will hear the details later, and I do not think that anyone would bless me if I went through them all now. It is worth bearing in mind that there are 80,000 Gaelic speakers in Scotland—less than 2


per cent. of the Scottish population—so I should have thought that most fair-minded people would consider our proposal to be a very good deal indeed for Gaelic speakers in Scotland.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Waddington: I am sorry, but I must press on.
There are also some matters not now in the Bill. I should tell the House that we shall be bringing forward provisions ending the cosy duopoly of programme listings, privatising the IBA transmission system and dealing with transitional arrangements. Also on this supplementary agenda are the detail of the independent production requirement on the BBC, provisions in regard to offshore pirate broadcasters and the ending of needle-time restrictions on the playing of records by radio stations.
Finally, I remind the House that a Conservative Government introduced ITV in the early 1950s, independent local radio in the early 1970s, Channel 4 at the beginning of the 1980s, and the independent productions initiative a couple of years ago. At each stage the pessimists prophesied doom and gloom—and every time they have been confounded. On 22 May 1952, Lord Reith likened the introduction of commercial broadcasting to smallpox, bubonic plague and the black death, and on 25 March 1954 Herbert Morrison for the Opposition said:
we regard the whole present scheme as objectionable and, indeed, futile … this Bill is the enemy of a reasonable culture in broadcasting and television."—[Official Report, 25 March 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1472–74.]
Today's pessimists should consider how their comments may sound in 30 years' time. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: At least the Home Secretary will agree with me that today we debate fundamental changes in the organisation of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. As broadcasting has such a crucial effect on all our lives, we are also considering a major influence on the conduct and character of our country during the rest of this century and beyond.
The criteria against which the Bill must be judged are the quality of broadcasting which it encourages and the choice of programmes that it would make available to listeners and viewers. The Government claim, as the Home Secretary appeared to be doing today, that their proposals are likely to increase choice and improve quality. They are almost alone in that contention. The most distinguished and experienced figures in broadcasting are united in the belief that, if the Bill becomes law, standards will fall and choice will be diminished.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I know that the hon. Gentleman is eager, but I should like to get on a little before I give way to him.
The Bill also fails when measured against an obligation of even greater importance than choice and quality—the protection of democracy.
In Britain an increasing threat to genuine democracy is the concentration of the ownership of newspapers and

broadcasting companies in the hands of fewer international media companies. Some parts of the Bill might have been written with the express intention of meeting the needs and fulfilling the ambitions of one of them—Mr. Rupert Murdoch. Already the Government have allowed Mr. Murdoch to acquire two national newspapers without the scrutiny of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. In part, the Bill might have been dictated during one of Mr. Murdoch's cosy lunches with the Prime Minister.
I take the clearest example of the favour that Mr. Murdoch and his like are to receive, and it is the clearest proof that, in the true meaning of the words, the Bill will reduce choice and not increase it. Clause 157 deals with what are called "listed events"—a subject on which the Home Secretary gave a sort of answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). He was right to acknowledge that his predecessor had written the Bill, but we are intrigued about whether the Home Secretary has read it. It was clear that he did not understand what is meant by clause 157, which deals with listed events—great sporting occasions such as the grand national, Wimbledon and the cup final, which attract massive audiences. At present, no single company is allowed to acquire the exclusive right to screen them. We all know that the Bill prohibits them from being screened through pay television, but that is not the question.

Mr. Waddington: That is precisely what I said was in the Bill.

Mr. Hattersley: It is exactly what the Home Secretary said but, unfortunately, it is not exactly the question that he was asked, which concerned protection against one company having the exclusive right to screen those promotions and against their being able to monopolise the screening. Under the Bill, that protection is being removed. It will be possible for a single satellite or cable company to acquire the sole right to broadcast, for example, the Grand National and to prevent national broadcasting companies from screening it at the same time or at all.
Satellite and cable television is currently watched by 3 per cent. of the viewing public. Let us assume that, by the time the Bill becomes law, the figure has trebled and Sky Television buys the exclusive right to screen Wimbledon, the cup final or the grand national.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): Why does the right hon. Gentleman make that assumption?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall tell the Minister of State exactly why I make that assumption in a moment, but let me carry him with me on the assumption and then I shall try to justify it.
Let us assume that Sky buys the right to screen the grand national. Last week, the Football Association behaved quite reasonably about this, but on the radio the Jockey Club said that in a free market it would sell its rights to the highest bidder, whatever the company might be. Instead of every family with a television set enjoying the chance to watch that national event, the opportunity would be restricted to fewer than 10 per cent. of British families. What sort of extension of free choice is that? It is simply the freedom of Rupert Murdoch to use his wealth and power to exploit the viewer. It represents his right to


dictate the terms on which British families enjoy television and the Government's willingness to be an accessory to that blackmail.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Give way.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is the most vocal and active Parliamentary Private Secretary that I have ever known. I shall give way after I have dealt with the question from the Minister of State which, like the PPS, he shouted from his seat rather than asking in the normal fashion.
The Minister of State asked why I should assume that Mr. Murdoch would want to buy the rights to one of those exclusive events. The answer is that that is what he always does when developing his broadcasting systems. It is his established technique. He buys a tempting programme and uses it as a loss-leader for the rest of the rubbish that he broadcasts, such as cartoons, old movies, pre-digested news and extended advertisements dressed up as consumer magazines. His aim is not to extend choice but to reduce it.
By popular demand, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and then to the Minister of State.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for eventually giving way. Does he understand that if any satellite broadcaster or what he would regard as a minority broadcaster were attracting the size of audience that he supposes, with no basis for his figures, they would be unable to afford to pay as much money as other broadcasters? Without attracting an audience, they would be unable to compete. Therefore it would be self-correcting. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to deny the sports that he is talking about access to money for their products.

Mr. Hattersley: I say only two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, his suggestion is belied by the experience of other countries, where minority satellites and cable companies have got their foot in the door and prised it open by making exclusive claims for events and saying to viewers, "Either you watch what we offer or you do not watch that programme at all."
Secondly—I shall develop the point in a moment if I get the opportunity—television, like football clubs and newspapers, has the unfortunate habit of attracting men who want to buy it not simply to make money but for prestige and political influence and as an entrée into other institutions and forms of life. They are prepared to lose to establish their position by saying, "I own this television company."

Mr. Mellor: Currently, if a satellite channel proprietor —there are more satellite channel proprietors than Mr. Murdoch—were to put in a bid, the right given to the BBC and ITV is to match it; they have no automatic right otherwise to show the programme. It is interesting that thus far no satellite operator has done so. The Bill makes one change, in that it says that it will be possible, although not on a pay-per-view basis, for the proprietor of a great national sporting event to sell to the highest bidder

In the right hon. Gentleman's pursuit of the Labour party's demonology theory about Rupert Murdoch, will he consider, first, that there is no reason why those who own a great sporting event should want to restrict its viewing to a few per cent. of the public? Secondly, the Labour party talks about money, but I wonder where the public interest lies, vis-à-vis the right of some broadcasting organisations to obtain sporting events at an undervalue or the right of the public who admire them to see them properly funded. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is the duty and obligation of the House, in perpetuity, to restrict the rights of individuals who promote sporting events to sell their products?

Mr. Hattersley: It is the duty of the Government to make great national occasions available to all the viewing public rather than a small proportion of them. That is the overwhelming view of the viewing public who have expressed an opinion.
I suspect that, like me, the Minister of State does not regard the grand national as the most important sporting occasion of the year, but, slightly to my surprise, many millions of people do. The Jockey Club and those who organise great sporting events have said on television and radio, in the Minister of State's terms, that they would sell the rights to the highest bidder. That seems to be not in the national interest but in the interests of a small number of satellite and cable broadcasters and perhaps in the interests of the Government, with their narrow view of these matters. It is not in the interests of media diversity and opportunity, which is what the Bill is supposed to be about.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I must get on. I shall give way in a moment but, like other hon. Members, I am restricted by the 6 o'clock rule. It is important that I do not forget it, as I am inclined to do.
I take this opportunity to make clear Labour Members' absolute commitment to greater diversity of media ownership. I make it clear that to us the problem of media ownership is not simply cross-promotion—newspapers plugging their own television channels, which is the subject of the inquiry that was announced last week—but cross-ownership. We should have a general reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the concentration of media ownership in fewer hands. Its terms should be the extent to which British newspapers and broadcasting companies are owned by a handful of individuals, and how the Government can best bring about disinvestment and greater diversity in the industry.
The Bill will facilitate concentration in one particular. This is the second point that I raised with the Secretary of State and I hope that the Minister of State will make this clear when he replies. Under the Bill, the proprietor of a national newspaper is not allowed to own more than 20 per cent. of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 company—that is quite right. However, why does not that prohibition apply to all satellite companies? Such an obligation could be placed on satellite companies by requiring them to relinquish ownership of British newspapers if they want to broadcast into Great Britain.
I understand that the Government—either their officials or Ministers—have told the British Satellite Broadcasting company that the membership-ownership


rule will be applied to it by secondary legislation—by some sort of order explicitly to prevent a satellite company that is based in Britain from being owned by or having any close connection with a British newspaper. If it is to apply to BSB, why will it not apply to Sky?
I present the Minister of State with another hypothesis. If Sky grows to the size of a Channel 3 company, why will Mr. Murdoch still be allowed to own five national newspapers—

Mr. Roger Gale: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Once upon a time the Government pretended that it was impossible to limit the connections between newspapers and ownership of Sky because that company is registered in Luxembourg. In the House of Lords, Lord Ferrers said that it was technically impossible to apply such a limitation. That fallacy having been exposed, this Minister of State discovered another reason for letting Mr. Murdoch do what he likes—to own a television company that broadcasts into Britain and five newspapers. The Minister of State gave his reason at a press conference a week last Thursday when he stated:
A vast amount of money has gone into getting this thing
—"this thing" being Sky—
off the ground",
and implying that we should not legislate. That seems a new principle of Conservative Government—those who spend enough money can make up the laws as they go along to suit their convenience—

Mr. Gale: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask me a question, I am delighted to give way.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not appreciate the difference between BSB, which is a domestic satellite licensed by the United Kingdom, and Astra which is a non-domestic satellite? Is he seriously suggesting that this control should not only be exercised over Mr. Murdoch, who happens to uplink from the United Kingdom but could just as easily uplink from anywhere else in Europe, but should be extended to every newspaper proprietor throughout Europe who uses a foreign satellite? If so, how will the right hon. Gentleman make that work under EC directives and the Council of Europe convention?

Mr. Hattersley: What I am suggesting—this is perfectly compatible with EC regulations and with English law—is that if someone owns a company that broadcasts into Great Britain, that person shall not be allowed to own the British newspapers that he possesses at present. The control would not require us to take any action against the satellite broadcasting company; it requires us to take action against the domestically based British newspaper. That can be done with complete ease, and should be done by anybody who does not believe in the concentration of the British media in fewer hands.
The Government's attitude towards satellite television demonstrates most graphically the misconception at the heart of the Bill. Real choice for viewers depends on a diversity of programmes, not simply on the proliferation of the number of buttons on a set that it is possible to

press. If pressing buttons produces no more than alternatives on the same dreary themes, choice has not been increased—it has been denied.
The Government confuse pressing buttons with making choices not least because, as the Bill demonstrates, they possess no coherent theory of broadcasting. The only attempt at a principle by which the Bill is guided is the weary old call for deregulation—an idea that clearly has not been thought through and which is not even applied with anything like consistency.
The Government preach deregulation but insist on possessing the power to veto appointments to the membership of the Channel 4 Corporation. When he replies, perhaps the Minister of State will tell us how this light-touch Government, this freedom-of-broadcasting Government, this deregulating Government, justify that little act of pointless authoritarianism. Opposition Members believe that the time has come to reduce, not increase, Government patronage. The Government appoint too many of their nominees to positions of authority and influence without check or limitation. In our view, neither the governors of the BBC nor the members of the Independent Television Commission should be appointed by the Government alone. They should be nominated by the Government and approved in office by a Committee of the House. Indeed, that rule should apply to all senior Government appointments.
A second proposal in the Bill is not so much incompatible with the claim of deregulation as in exact opposition to the notion. I refer to the whole of part V, which sets up the Broadcasting Standards Council. I admit at once that, in common with others, I was quite wrong about that institution. I feared that it was potentially sinister. I now realise that it is immediately ridiculous. It will possess no effective powers and have no real purpose, except to pretend to keep a promise that the Prime Minister gave at an unguarded moment and which she continues to repeat, although the Bill proves that what she continues to offer cannot and will not be realised.
In the debate on the Loyal Address, the Prime Minister announced that the Broadcasting Standards Council would be given the power
to keep the violence that is unacceptable off our screens." —[Official Report, 21 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 31.]
However, no such power is mentioned in the Bill. As is so often the case, I take it that the Prime Minister said what she thought convenient at the time rather than what she knew to be accurate. I maintain my surprise that Lord Rees-Mogg, for whom I have considerable respect, should be prepared to lend his name to this silly and pointless exercise, which has been made all the more silly and pointless by the Government's welcome decision to extend the obscenity and racial incitement laws to cover television. That should be the proper and only limitation on what broadcasters are allowed to broadcast.
Choice and quality in television depend in part on the way in which the franchises to broadcast are allocated and on the rules that govern that right, as well as on the price that is paid to maintain it. Companies can obtain contracts through a process which, in general, encourages a wide variety of high-quality programmes, or by a system that puts a premium on neither standards nor choice.
In their proposals for licensing satellite companies, the Government have clearly abandoned all interest in quality and diversity. They expressly absolve the satellite companies from fulfilling the minimum obligations that


are required of domestic companies. Clause 31 (a),(b) and (d) absolves them from that duty. However, as the minimum obligations are in themselves wholly inadequate, the idea that the Government are protecting quality, diversity and choice even in the terrestrial channels does not withstand a moment's examination. The claims for quality and diversity are based on the concept of minimum standards that a company must agree to accept before it can bid for a franchise and which must be maintained after the contract is made if a financial penalty is to be avoided. But nobody believes that the financial penalty will be large enough to act as a real deterrent.
I shall now make another of my assumptions—that the standards set out in the Bill are respected. But the question that immediately arises is, "What are those standards worth?" The answer is, "Not very much." When those standards were first set out, the then Home Secretary described them as a "threshold", but by the time the White Paper was debated, the metaphor had changed to "hurdle". I prophesied at the time that they would soon become a fence, but I had not allowed for the verbal exuberance of the new Minister of State, whom I heard on the radio two weeks ago describing them as a "Becher's brook".

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman's standards of taste and accuracy are no higher than usual. It was the chairman of the ITC, Mr. Russell, who used the phrase, "Becher's brook". I merely retailed it around for him.

Mr. Hattersley: I compliment the Minister on his unusual modesty. I heard him use that expression in undeniable terms on the radio. If he wants to disown it now, I shall give way again.

Mr. Mellor: If it is the right hon. Gentleman's case that there is no quality threshold worth having, surely he should be reassured that the chairman-designate of the ITC and present chairman of the IBA says that it is to be a Becher's brook—that is, if the right hon. Gentleman is interested in reassurance rather than making cheap points.

Mr. Hattersley: I will come to a compact with the Minister that either we support everything that the chairman of the ITC suggests and implement everything that he proposes or, if the Minister will not accept that proposition, and pursue the metaphor, we can take a walk round the course to see how formidable an obstacle Becher's brook is.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree the Government are busy making Becher's brook even easier to jump?

Mr. Hattersley: I want to examine this barrier. Clause 16 defines the basic requirements that any company must fulfil before it can make a bid for a Channel 3 franchise. They include the requirements
that a sufficient amount of time is given … to news programmes and current affairs programmes … of high quality … that a sufficient amount of time is given to programmes (other than news and current affairs programmes) which are of high quality … a sufficient amount of time is given to … regional programmes.
The Home Secretary, not normally a conciliatory man, will agree that those are not over-precise definitions of the standards.
I admit that they are only the beginning. There is also an obligation to appeal to a variety of tastes and include a proper proportion of programmes made in Europe. Again, those criteria do not suffer from an excess of intellectual rigour. Certainly, clause 16 gives the new ITC the right to define the terms. The Home Secretary must not pretend that the new ITC will be able to impose standards as exact as those upon which the IBA can insist now.
We were promised a light touch, and a light touch we certainly have been given. At present the IBA can ask for —it can demand—religious programmes, children's programmes, drama and documentaries. It is no good the Home Secretary saying to the House, "Don't worry, it is not written into the Bill but trust me and the Commission to propose it." According to the Government's propaganda, the purpose of the Bill is to lay down minimum standards. To take refuge in the idea that the minimum standards can be taken for granted without being specified is a negation of all that the Government previously claimed. More importantly, the new Commission cannot negotiate with the companies for the new right to broadcast.
When he replies to the debate, I should like the Minister of State to describe what will happen in the following circumstances. Two bidding companies apply for a franchise. In their prospectuses, both demonstrate their acceptance of the minimum standard set out in the Bill. One offers a programme prospectus that is superior to the other in terms of quality and diversity but it makes a bid lower than that of its inferior competitor. In those circumstances, can the commission award the contract to the programme company that offers the best programmes but the lowest tender? We know that the Bill does not allow that to happen, yet the Government continue to claim to care about quality.
The commission cannot invite the highest bidder to improve the quality of its programmes. Nor can it invite the company with the best programmes to increase its offer. Certainly, clause 17(3) provides for the Commission to reject the highest bid in exceptional circumstances. But no one has any idea what those circumstances might be. If the Home Secretary, who has written into his Bill the right to exclude a bid in exceptional circumstances, had the faintest idea what those circumstances were, he might have revealed them to us in his speech.

Mr. Spearing: Did my right hon. Friend notice that in justifying the procedure the Home Secretary prayed in aid taxpayers' rights and value for money for the nation? Will he invite the Home Secretary now, or perhaps in Committee, to calculate the difference between the hypothetical high and low bids in terms of quality such as my right hon. Friend postulated, and divide that difference between the two into a weekly amount that every household in the country will have to pay? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be a small sum?

Mr. Hattersley: I have the answer to my hon. Friend's equation. The Exchequer will receive very little extra for a substantial reduction in quality.

Mr. Walden: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that I should like to reinforce. Surely the point is that the more people are encouraged to bid for the channels, the less they will be able to put into programmes. As a result, the much-vaunted Becher's brook will decline.

Mr. Hattersley: I agree with that and I hope to give some examples of exactly the position that the hon. Gentleman describes.
No one has any idea what the exceptional circumstances might be in which the commission could refuse the highest bid. Clearly, the commission would be crazy to risk discovering them in court, so it will give the contract to the highest bidder. The chairman of the IBA, who will be the new chairman of the commission, does not believe that the powers granted to him by the Bill will give him the chance to choose high quality in preference to high cash offers. He has said that to me in terms. As the Minister of State hangs on his every word and repeats them with such assiduity, why does he believe that the chairman-elect of the commission is wrong to fear that the complications in choosing between a high bid and lower quality will result in a deterioration in quality? Everyone else believes that that will be the case.
I suggest that a compromise is possible when choosing between bids, and I urge it on the Government. It was originally suggested by the Peacock committee, which was set up by the Government in preparation for the Bill, and the chairman-elect of the commission also urges the Government to accept the compromise. It should be possible for the commission to accept a lower bid if, in its judgment, that bid gives the viewer better value for money in terms of the programme service provided. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and endorsed, as I understand them, by some Conservative Members. I hope that, in the spirit of ecumenism, the Minister of State will consider that genuine attempt to compromise between now and 9.30 pm or in Committee.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: We are all in favour of better value for money. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me, on behalf of my constituents, where in the great Labour plan for quality we shall find the soap operas, game shows and murder mysteries which I and many British people thoroughly enjoy?

Hon. Members: On television.

Mr. Hattersley: As my hon. Friends say, we shall find them on television. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that I would not be party to any Bill that put "Coronation Street" in jeopardy—[Interruption.] About "EastEnders" I make no such assurance, but "Coronation Street" is absolutely sacrosanct.
I accept that the compromise that I suggest requires the Government to move away from one of their principles. It is the right of the franchising authority to negotiate with companies bidding for the right to broadcast. The IBA enjoys that power at present. If the Government denied it to the commission, they would wilfully abandon one of the principal methods of improving both quality and diversity.
It is possible to appreciate the importance of the negotiations only if we fully understand the method by which the Bill proposes to award contracts, a feat—

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Not in the middle of a sentence, but I shall do so in a moment. That is a feat apparently beyond the leader writer of The Times, whose sycophantic editorial on the subject of contract procedures simply got the facts wrong.
The Bill does not propose an auction of television franchises—would that it did. Auctioning contracts is by no means our choice of method for awarding the right to broadcast, but it is a good deal better than the requirement to make a single blind bid in a sealed evelope. I remind the Minister that an auction of a sort was the second compromise urged on the Government by the industry. I commend it to him as an alternative way in which to assure value and quality. If the Government allowed a second bid it would be possible for a company to begin with a modest offer, committing most of their resources to programme-making, and if its bid was lower than that of another company it could make a second, larger offer, if necessary budgeting for lower-quality programmes.
From our point of view that is a far from perfect method, but it is much superior to a system that requires a bidding company to risk everything on a single tender. In consequence, that encourages the bidding company to risk everything to concentrate its resources on inflated offers rather than better programmes.
The only possible justification for the single blind bid is the calculated decision to use the allocation of television franchises as a means of raising revenue—the maximum amount of revenue. Maximising revenue and protecting quality are two mutually incompatiable objectives. Money spent on buying the franchise will not be available for the production of expensive, high-quality programmes.

Mr. Dykes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the form of words relating to such changes should be agreed by all parts of the House? It is important that there is a consensus about such an important measure which transcends the different sides of the House. The form of words could be elaborated on later through a straightforward amendment tabled in Committee. That Committee stage must be an intelligent one, not the ritual to which we have become accustomed in recent years. The ITC will also construct the relevant clauses relating to its operations and it could encapsulate some suggestions about those changes. If such changes are not considered by the Government. the ITC will inevitably be a weak regulatory organisation.

Mr. Hattersley: I agree, and I hope that I can demonstrate that by saying that the Opposition, who want the normal—dare I say—contentious Committee, do not include in their first speech on the subject two proposals for compromise. They are not ideal to the Opposition, and the two suggestions that I have made would not naturally be introduced by us were we to have a free hand. I have suggested some areas in which quality and choice might be protected, which maintains the Government's view about how the Bill should be structured in general. My certain wish is that the Committee should improve the Bill rather than be a Committee of ritual battles over clauses, which often does not get us very far.
In not quite such an emollient tone, it is important to stress that one complicating factor of the single bid is the sort of people who will be encouraged by the nature of the system to write down a figure, put it in an envelope and send it to the franchise authority. Recently the Minister of State refused to accept that the Australian experience might be reproduced here. All the evidence suggests, however, that we might face exactly the same problems, not least because of the risk of rogue bids coming from outside the industry.
Discussing the prospectus with the IBA, as programme companies now do, maximises the participation of the professional broadcaster in the franchise negotiations—the man or woman who is interested in programme-making. The blind bid encourages cowboys. There is a type of individual who will bid for television companies for reasons that are only obliquely concerned with television —political influence, glamour, prestige and political connections. Newspapers and football clubs have the same attraction. The people who buy them often do so for the wrong reasons and with disastrous consequences. The Australian experience could be repeated here and we should remind ourselves what it was.
In that country three national commercial networks were bought by the highest bidders with no previous television connections. Mr. Alan Bond bought Channel 9 for 1.3 billion Australian dollars—shortly after it was valued at 0.15 billion Australian dollars. Mr. Christopher Skane bought Channel 7, but that company is now in liquidation. Mr. Frank Lowry bought Channel 10 and his company has made such immediate losses that half of them have been formally written off.
Faced with such a situation—bidding too much and making promises just to get the company—the new owner has only one option. Profit in television is a simple equation—profit equals advertising revenue minus production costs. With so much extra advertising time on offer because of the Bill it will not be possible to increase advertising revenue pounds per minute, and the only option will be to cut programme costs. Let us consider those programme costs. BBC and ITV drama costs between £;350,000 and £;400,000 an hour. Old films are available for between £;2,500 and £;5,000 an hour. If firms overbid and find themselves overstretched, their inevitable and unavoidable action will be to reduce high-quality production and high-quality broadcasts and turn towards lower, cheaper quality programmes. In one way that shift is being encouraged by the Government, as the Bill undermines the concept of public service broadcasting.
The obligation of cable or MVDS companies to carry BBC channels among their programmes will be abandoned if the Bill becomes law. The Secretary of State said that no such obligation existed in present law, but it exists in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. That Act is to be repealed, however, and the obligation to carry BBC programmes on cable transmissions is not included in the Bill. As recently as September the then Home Secretary said that what is known as the "must carry" rule would be maintained. If, as I am sure the Government hope, cable prospers, an increasing proportion of people will obtain their entire viewing from such outlets. They will, as the Bill now stands, risk being denied access to public service channels—BBC 2, BBC 1 and Channel 4. The previous Home Secretary wished to protect their right to enjoy access to those channels and he promised that it would be maintained. Why was that promise broken?
In Cambridge, at the same time as promising that that access would be maintained, the right hon. Gentleman also promised the BBC would remain "the cornerstone of broadcasting", complemented by commercial channels. How can the BBC remain the cornerstone of broadcasting if it is not available to every television viewer, especially those who do not receive their signals from cable?
Universal availability is an essential feature of public service broadcasting. When the Minister replies I hope that he will tell us why it is to be abandoned. I hope that we will be told in turn—as the newspapers were told 10 days ago—that the Government are genuinely prepared to examine changes and amendments. They could demonstrate the good faith of that promise by agreeing that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee. It would therefore be subject to the expert scrutiny that a Bill of this importance deserves. I promise here and now that a Special Standing Committee will not take any longer than the normal procedures, but it will ensure that we examine the Bill more thoroughly and sensibly than going through the ritual confrontation.
If a Special Standing Committee is not possible, I hope that we will be spared the ritual rudeness during the Minister's wind-up speech and that questions will be answered calmly and contradictions in policy explained. If that is not the rule and if there is no suggestion of a willingness to amend and compromise, all the talk about open minds and doors will be demonstrated to be so much public relations guff.
In the meantime we shall, of course, vote against the Second Reading. Our vote will be cast for real diversity and genuine quality, for neither of those essential objectives is protected by the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that the 10-minutes limit on speeches operates from six o'clock.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Many people in this debate will want to talk about the quality of programming, but there is another matter that hon. Members may well not discuss and to which I want to refer briefly: a mechanism for the provision of training. I referred to it when we discussed the White Paper earlier this year. It is extremely important to safeguard the industry's future by having some mechanism to ensure that training is properly provided.
I hope that it will be unnecessary to extol the virtues and importance of training. Certain special industries in this country, such as special effects, have produced films such as the Bond films and "Star Wars". The special technicians, who have demonstrated their expertise in this country, have, over a period, gone to Hollywood. Due to the failure to provide proper training here, we have not generated a second generation or echelon of people, and we no longer have the expert capability.
In a franchise business, which is what we are talking about today, managements frequently have recourse to the old argument that they do not have a long enough security of tenure to provide training programmes. They use that as a sort of alibi. Some mechanism should be devised that is linked to the levy, and perhaps also to the percentage of the net advertising revenue formula, to enable contractors to contribute towards a training programme.
If we consider the importance of the new technology, high-definition television, we see that if we do not spend enough time and effort on training people who are both in front of and behind the camera about the importance of high-definition television, we shall run the risk of


becoming a Third-world nation. This country's television and film production industry is maintained only by the expertise of the people working in it.
In talking about quality, I shall draw on my experience gained during five years in the Ministry of Defence, when I frequently adjudicated on procurement contests—if I may use that word. In those cases, we were looking for the lowest bid, not the highest, but the principle was exactly the same. We never said that we would always take the lowest bid, but that we would seek the lowest bid and then look at other criteria. I am worried that the ITC will be so completely boxed in that it will have no discretion to take account of the other essential criteria: the amount of money to be spent on programming. If that is not clearly stated and the ITC does not have the ability to take that into account, I fear that we shall be driven further towards lower programme standards.
I speak as someone who is not enamoured of present television programmes. Teachers in my constituency say that it is becoming impossible to persuade schoolchildren to participate in team games after class because they want to go home and watch a particular programme. I do not find that encouraging in relation to the wider use of television in society.
I am extremely anxious about the quality of television, as are many other hon. Members. I seek assurances from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that he will be prepared to allay my concern and build into the Bill some discretionary powers of the ITC to use in the circumstances that I have described. If I am not given those assurances, I shall have to consider carefully whether I can support the Bill this evening.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am totally surprised and delighted at being called so early in this debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I promise not to call the hon. Gentleman so early in future.

Mr. Buchan: I recall that the last time that somebody seemed to be totally astonished was Rupert Murdoch, although a competent written speech had been written for him. In that speech, at the television conference in Edinburgh this year, he started by saying that in economic matters, competition was always to be preferred to monopoly. From then on he talked about the economics of television to an audience of people who were artists, singers and in the theatre, and journalists concerned with news and facts. For him, it was sufficient that he could prove a case of profit coming from competition, as opposed to monopoly.
The same criterion applies once we have bids for television stations. If we have an auction bid, we are saying that we are seeing what money we can bring for the Treasury. As I understand the Home Secretary's responses to some of the earlier interventions, that was exactly his position. He seemed to suggest that we should have regard to the Treasury and the revenue coming in. However, in public service broadcasting we are not dealing with enormous figures. Advertising on commercial television will not cost the Treasury huge amounts of money. The remaining duty of public service broadcasting—which is also laid on existing commercial television, but which the Bill removes—will not be costly.
When we consider what television is, we should be prepared to pay a great cost. I am worried that Ministers do not seem to understand television's potential greatness. Today, man can speak to man at the same moment throughout the world. That is amazing. We can see the horrifying events in Tiananmen square and see the daily events in Wenceslaus square and know that something great and good is happening, to which we can respond. That is an amazing development in human communications and experience. We have been given an instrument with which we can expand human experience and improve communications.
The Bill is the most important piece of legislation we have had in this House for the past 10 years. Communication between man and man is what matters. All else flows from the understanding between humans. None of us questions—although the Government are trying to privatise it—the cost and devotion of time, energy and intellect to our universities and educational system. We know that our children must be educated, and we have an instrument that can enhance and develop that education. However, we are concerned only with how to maximise the money gained from this marvellous instrument.
In future, if we survive and live to see a time when we cease to have Governments with such a drab monotony of thought, we shall look back with amazement at throwing away such an opportunity. It is not enough for hon. Members to intervene and ask whether plays and games would be allowed on television. Of course television should provide entertainment, relaxation and the luxury of seeing such programmes. However, more important—people accept this—are documentaries. As soon as we commercialise broadcasting, we face the problem that there will be no means of allowing exciting, dangerous or risky experimentation.
I shall give the case which I gave to Rupert Murdoch, whose channels must make maximum profits. I asked him whether, if a man who had never been heard of, but who happened to be called Attenborough, asked him to devote much time and money to putting on a series of programmes about wildlife, he would have bought the series. The answer is that he would not. It is only because we have public service broadcasting that Attenborough has built up a mass viewing for such programmes. If someone had asked me five or 10 years ago whether I would pay for subscription broadcasting of such programmes I would have thought it nonsense—there would be no interest in them. But we who have accidentally come across these programmes have suddenly realised how marvellous and fascinating they are.
The criminality inherent in the Government's Bill is that this sort of development will not take place, because every time, the audience will have to be maximised, and that will involve two conditions.
First, a programme must be easily understood: it must not turn people off; it must not involve experimentation or anything new. Secondly, a programme must not disturb too many people: they must not switch it off; it must be fairly tranquil pap. I am no expert, but I believe there is good and bad rock music; likewise, there will be better and worse pap, but by and large it will not be experimental, it will not break new ground, it will not energise people or extend human experience. Above all, it will not offend. I think, with Hamlet, that unless there is offence not much happens.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said that the Broadcasting Standards Council was nothing to be worried about. I foresee a double jeopardy. It might have been right to bring the Obscene Publications Act 1964 into broadcasting—in some ways it was anomalous that it should have been missing, although I greatly distrust the Government handling anything of that sort. Now, in addition, the Government are bringing in the Broadcasting Standards Council—under Rees-Mogg, of all people—and that presents the double jeopardy.
The council will not go for the sleazy, suggestive pap: it will go for the serious programmes. Writing in 1907, Bernard Shaw listed the plays that the Lord Chamberlain had banned in that year. They included "Oedipus Rex", his own "Mrs. Warren's Profession" and Ibsen's "Ghosts". As Bernard Shaw pointed out, any commercial manager in London could put on plays about brothels or adultery as long as they were fun, but as soon as they became serious—like "Ghosts"—they were banned. As long as they were light, such plays were an open sesame for profit, for sleaze-makers. Just to prove the point, hon. Members may recall that Lord Rees-Mogg's favourite programme is "'Allo 'Allo"—sleazy titillation with undertones of Gestapo bondage.
To conclude, I want to quote Nye Bevan—I have quoted Murdoch enough. Bevan said that there is no need to look at the crystal ball when you can read the book—and we can read the book. Hon. Members who read my book will discover more about the subject—

Mr. Tony Banks: An excellent book.

Mr. Buchan: The book deals with what has happened to broadcasting when it goes commercial—for instance, in Australia, where there was immediate reduction in the number of serious programmes. Channel 9 in Australia has no current affairs, arts, religious or educational programmes and no documentaries, and 20 per cent. of broadcasting time is given over to advetising. The foreign radio and television broadcasting that I know best is that of Italy, where—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that I must now call the next hon. Member to speak—

Mr. Buchan: —the new commercialised channel 5 devotes more than 27 per cent. of its time to advertising.

Mr. John Gorst: the Government's plans provide a most insecure and unpromising field for investment on the part of programme contractors."—[Official Report, 25 March 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1473.]
if this Bill becomes law, future historians will deem it to be one of the most irresponsible measures of modern times."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 1954; Vol. 188, c. 284.]
I trust we shall reject this Bill, not only because commercial television is undesirable but also because it will not be of value."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 1954; Vol. 188, c. 303.]
I reassure my right hon. Friend the Minister that those are not my words—they were spoken by Labour spokesmen on broadcasting back in 1954. I apologise for resorting to a somewhat banal and childish deception, but

my point is a serious one. My motive was not party political. I could equally well have quoted the late Earl of Halifax, a Conservative Peer, who said that, because the principle of public service seemed more important than the principle of commercial competition, he felt unable to support the Second Reading of the Television Bill back in 1954.
At every stage of our broadcasting history we have been nervous about taking the next step. My theme is simply that, as in the past, we tend to say that we have heard it all before—the faint hearts have always shouted louder than those who were bold, although the more enterprising may eventually have won the day. That is not to say that caution is out of place. Nor does it imply that broadcasting is unimportant. Everyone agrees that it is important. We can go further in agreement and say that innovations carry risks, so sensible precautions must be taken to avoid making mistakes. Today's debate is essentially about taking sensible precautions. Although it involves examining the facts leading to the best results, it also means ignoring the spurious cries of woe from various vested interests.
There is no shortage of special pleading. It comes from narrow-minded and enlightened people just as much as from self-interested or altruistic people. Let us examine first the cries of woe. Certain themes have constantly recurred in debates over the past 30 years. Will the change be viable? What about the quality of programmes? What about hostility to advertising? Dislike of private profit and accusations of triviality have been voiced. It has been said that ethics and morality will be debased and that changes will constitute a waste of our resources. The enemies of change are not always the upholders of the public conscience. Sometimes they are merely defenders of vested interests.
Back in the 1950s, the keynote was the defence of the BBC monopoly. The Opposition spokesman at the time said:
There are … principles of our public life, one of them being that changes in great established national institutions should not be made without broad agreement."—[Official Report, 15 December 1953; Vol. 522, c. 328.]
I believe that I have already heard that argument today.
There is an innate dislike of commerce, too. Speaking for the Opposition, Lord Macdonald went so far as to ask:
Is it wise for this country to follow up this craze that we find growing rapidly in some countries to commercialise everything? … Surely there are some things which are too sacred to be commercialised."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 May 1952; Vol. 176, c. 1371.]
In the 1960s, the rationalisation was that private profit could never serve the public interest. The excuse articulated by the Labour spokesman was that the language of priorities dictated that due to lack of resources we should make no progress. In the 1970s the emphasis switched again. It was then a cocktail of technical difficulties and trivialisation.
Finally, having reached the 1980s, we are virtually back at square one. We have returned to where we started, back to the dying days of Lord Reith's era, and once again one has a growing sense of having been down this road before. Lord Reith said:
nothing could be more certain than that Gresham's Law will apply and dominate".
With those words, the great patriach of broadcasting thundered against the breaking of the BBC monopoly and foreshadowed today's discussion about the auctioning franchises driving out the good. In ever more scathing


tones Lord Reith denounced even more wicked possibilities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary spoke of Lord Reith's references to smallpox, bubonic plague and the black death, and Lord Reith ended the speech in question by saying:
Somebody is minded now to introduce sponsored broadcasting into this country.
and
A principle absolutely fundamental and cherished is about to be scuttled."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 1952; Vol. 176, c. 1295–7.]
For "sponsored broadcasting" we need only substitute the word "deregulation" and not much seems to have changed over the years.
Today we are witnessing a replay of two well-worn tunes from earlier decades. The first is that we must preserve the status quo as far as possible and at all costs, keep the BBC as it is, not upset the existing pattern of ITV contractors and freeze the formula for Channel 4. The second is an admonition that quality, standards and viability could be victims of innovation. Having listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) one would think that a third had been added—a threat to democracy itself.
Opposing these novel changes is an unholy alliance. Once upon a time it was the bishops in harness with the vice-chancellors and the BBC. Nowadays it is a less plausible alliance—the television entrepreneurs, safely entrenched in their citadels of power but hand in hand with the industry's creative people. Together they seem united against any invasion of their private, privileged territory.
Nothing that I have said should be taken as suggesting that I do not believe in pressing for the highest possible standards in broadcasting. The broadest spectrum of economically viable choice, not to mention economical use of technical and financial resources, is also highly desirable. Everyone admits, however, that we are moving into a new era of broadcasting and that the old methods of awarding franchises are not necessarily the best. The Government's plans must be thoroughly examined and probed in Committee, as they will be, and the Minister has already said outside the House that there will be reasonableness. That is commendable and highly desirable, but it has to be set against an equally important factor—the fact that we must put behind us for ever Lord Reith's thundering pronouncement that intellectual and ethical objectives
are here and now at stake."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 1952; Vol. 176, c. 1297.]
They are not, they have not been, and they will not be.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I followed the Home Secretary's speech with great interest. He will understand why I am opposed to the swashbuckling philosophy behind the Bill. It will make money for the Treasury at the expense of programme quality. Competition is one thing, but it is bad to have moneybags at the expense of viewing standards. I am strongly opposed to the Bill.
I should like to speak on just one aspect of the Bill, and I shall be brief. It is about the group that the Home Secretary mentioned in his speech—deaf people. He said that there is provision in the Bill for helping deaf people, and he and the Minister of State, Home Office have said that they want to help. I appreciate that. Deaf people have political significance for every hon. Member because they

are to be found in every constituency. They are deprived of television if they are totally deaf or very hard of hearing. They simply cannot follow it without subtitling; in some cases, they need sign language. It is sad that so many deaf people should be excluded from television in that way.
For decades, they have been excluded because there was no subtitling. After subtitling was introduced, it was slowly extended, and today there is some provison. I should like the House to look at the amount of subtitling that exists. There is subtitling on several programmes, including documentaries and wildlife programmes. There is Oracle and Ceefax subtitling for various programmes on BBC and ITV. They do a good job. Independent Television News has live subtitles on its news programmes and is to be warmly commended for that. The little misspelling and few seconds delay on the Oracle subtitling on ITN is irrelevant. What is important is that it makes ITN news meaningful to the deaf viewer, whereas BBC news programmes are meaningless pictures. I hope that the BBC will think again and provide proper subtitling for its news programmes.
The Bill says that there will be a mandatory increase of 10 per cent. in the subtitled hours of commercial television programmes. I welcome that recognition of need by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State. However, a 10 per cent. increase is lamentable. There are about two hours of subtitling per channel per day, although there are over 500 hours of television per week. A 10 per cent. increase in those two hours means an increase of 12 minutes per channel per day, and that is not good enough. The Government cannot be serious. The figures cannot be challenged. I know that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State want to help, but such an increase is not acceptable.

Mr. Mellor: I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should understand exactly what the Bill says, because we want to meet him and those who feel strongly about this issue. The 10 per cent. increase is only for the first year of the new Channel 3 franchises. Thereafter, we expect the Independent Television Commission to suggest a new target each year which will increase year on year. The precise extent by which it should increase is a matter upon which I feel sure the ITC will want to hear the views of the House as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. The 10 per cent. increase is just a start, and we see it as an increasing commitment every year.

Mr. Ashley: The Minister has made an important statement, which I hope the ITC will bear in mind, because the Bill does not say that. The Bill says that the Commission needs to make the increase "greater"—not greater than 10 per cent.—in successive years. What does "greater" mean? If one is trying to minimise subtitles and make profits, "greater" could mean 1 per cent. or 0·1 per cent., and that is my anxiety.
I am delighted by what the Minister has said. The spirit of his intervention must be taken on board by the ITC. That is the end of my speech. Subtitling is crucial, because it is the key for deaf people. The Minister's statement is a big advance.

Mr. Michael Alison: I shall concentrate on one feature of the Bill—the provision, or lack of provision, for Christian or other religious broadcasting. The Bill is


deficient and unsatisfactory in this respect. However, I am encouraged by, and appreciative of, the attitude taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State about religious broadcasting in the informal exchanges that I and other colleagues have had with him. It is clear that he has an open mind about this topic.
Let me highlight some of the defects of the Bill under this heading. It accentuates the negative on religious broadcasting. There is barely a word about it, except in terms of prohibition and restriction. In the very engine room of the Bill, clause 2, a positive duty is laid on the new independent television commission
to facilitate the provision of … a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests.
It is to provide those services by licence.
Yet clause 5 goes on to disbar and disallow any Christian body from becoming a licence holder. The so-called wide range of interests to be created for by licensees is open-ended in all sorts of directions, but in the direction of the Christian Churches and other religions, the door is conspicuously and deliberately closed. So, alongside governmental and bureaucratic bodies infinitely more limited in their appeal, Churches are disbarred from taking part as licensees. This is unreasonable and unacceptable.
I remind my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of what the Bishop of St. Albans said in his commentary on the Bill:
churchgoing is still the most popular, voluntary communal activity of the British people".
It far exceeds, for example, attendance at football matches, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend and the Government have really seriously thought through the desirability of specifically disbarring the most popular national communal activity from being promoted, through banning its sponsors and promoters from taking their wares on to the air as licenceholders.
Some might argue that the United States television experience, involving scandals like that of Jimmy Bakker, provide evidence enough that we should not go down that road. However, the Bill already provides adequate safeguards to prevent such abuse—for example, the quality provisions in clause 6 and the fund-raising regulatory powers in clause 7. I urge the Government to consider open-mindedly, sympathetically and carefully the possibility of removing this fundamental limitation on the future of religious broadcasting.
If the limitation is persisted with, it will have the effect of de-licensing, and thus forcing off the air, an existing excellent cable channel carrying mainstream Christian religious output to 65,000 homes in Glasgow, Coventry, Swindon, Croydon and Ealing. The material in this output was recently described by the Cable Television Authority as "worthwhile and accessible". Could anything make the point more vividly about the Bill's accentuation of the negative than its proposal to wring the neck of such programme options? In this context, the views of the Central Religious Advisory Committee for the BBC and IBA on this issue are not the views of the Church of England as a whole, nor those of the wider Christian church.
The so-called radio option provided for in the Bill is not so restrictive, but it does not meet the case. I remind my

hon. Friend the Minister of the point made by Mr. Clive Calver, the general director of the Evangelical Alliance in a recent letter to The Times. He said:
If churches were to apply for radio licences they would be denied management control of their own output. Clause 83 (2) requires that a licensee should 'exclude from its programmes all expressions of views and opinions of the person providing the service … on religious matters'.
By this caveat a radio station run by a local church could not even broadcast its own live worship to the community it serves.
The religious broadcasting on sound radio option is a good start in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. The very fact of the admissibility of sound radio broadcasting should be regarded as the first chink in the curtain which could be extended to visual broadcasting.
Part of the Government's defence of their position as set out in the Bill is their declared confidence that, notwithstanding the prohibition of television station ownership, plenty of prime time will continue to be given to religious programmes under the new regime, as there is at present. The Government believe that the BBC will continue to feature religion on both channels, as it does now. Although the Government frankly acknowledge that there is no statutory requirement for religious programmes to be shown on ITV, they believe that the generalised provisions of clause 2(2)(b) about catering for
a variety of tastes and interests
will be sufficient for the safeguarding of prime time religious programmes.
Who is kidding whom? Does my hon. and learned Friend really believe that the abandonment of an overt public service obligation for the new commercial services, coupled with the new franchises tendering regime, will do anything other than marginalise Christian or other religious programmes? Unfortunately, it is no answer to argue that good quality and popular religious programmes such as "Highway" and "Songs of Praise" will continue to command prime time. Admittedly, they can command up to one third of the entire population of viewers, but the harsh reality is set out in this quote from the Bishop of St. Albans in his paper from the Church of England committee for communications:
Although the size of audience is important, the crucial factor is its composition. A large audience of impecunious people does not interest advertisers. Since advertising breaks are not allowed in the middle of religious programmes, they are not among the high revenue earners.
It is the buying power of an audience, and not simply its size, which appeals to advertisers. Unless there are conservation safeguards in the new system, genuine audience choice will be inhibited.
In 1988, some ITV programme controllers attempted to move 'Highway' from its popular slot early on Sunday evening. 'Highway' is always in the top 100 programmes, drawing up to 10m viewers each week. Its unattractiveness to programme controllers is that its audience is neither young nor wealthy, so it has little appeal for advertisers.
That is the harsh reality. That is the reason that mainstream, prime-time religious programmes will go by the board and religion will be marginalised. That is not compatible with the sort of attitude that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, among others, takes towards the importance of religion in broadcasting.
I share and thoroughly advocate the views expressed by the pressure group Christian Choice in Broadcasting, which insists that it is
essential that: channels committed to general programming should include religion; the wide selection of special-interest channels should include at least one with a religious emphasis.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: There will be plenty of time in Committee to examine the Bill clause by clause and line by line. I shall use my 10 minutes today to examine the principles behind the Bill and to explain why there is a fundamental difference in values and in approach to the Bill between Conservative Members and Opposition Members. I hope that Conservative Members will not try to excuse the Bill with the line. "There is a small part that I do not like, but I can vote against that in Committee." They should examine the values behind the Bill and decide on Second Reading whether they support or reject it.
I shall take the Government at face value and believe them, temporarily, when they say that their basic principle is to provide for greater choice. It has been demonstrated conclusively in the debates that have preceded this one that greater numbers of programmes will not provide greater choice. We have seen that demonstrated in the listed events for sport. If the free market is allowed to apply, whether for sport or anything else, there can be no argument from a Thatcherite Government point of view that if a channel can afford to pay for a national event, it should have it, and that it is up to individuals to decide whether to have a satellite dish, or whatever else is required, to receive it.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that there is a need for regulation to ensure that the nation as a whole can see national events. It is the result of skilled scheduling that areas which constitute minority interests now become majority interests. For example, who would have thought 10 or 15 years ago that snooker would be a major national event when world championships are being played? That is achieved by scheduling within a programme remit that has balance because the various events are shown during the course of an evening in a major national network programme.
Programme quality is already being affected. It is not pie in the sky to say that if franchises are auctioned programme quality will be affected in future. Any television company will say now that there is a need already to cut programme budgets because it is saving for the franchise auction. It is inevitable that companies will have to do that. My hon. Friends and I are not scaremongering when we say that the quality of programming will be affected. If cash is the first priority, quality will he affected and it is being affected now.
If there is a proliferation of channels there will not be more money to create programmes. We know that viewers spend about five hours a day watching television and that most adults watch for 25 hours a week. No one seriously suggests that when we have a proliferation of channels people will be watching more television. They will be spreading their viewing through more channels and there will be lower programme budgets to deliver the quality of programmes required by those operating the channels. That means that less money will be available for each programme.
We all know that good programming requires money. Who would have the nerve to send John Pilger to Cambodia with a film crew for a long time to make outstanding television documentaries on a restricted budget? John Pilger's programmes have demonstrated the power of television to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The response has been reflected in the letters which have reached our mailbags. There must be considerable commitment if such programmes are to be produced. As

my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said, who would be able to permit film crews to make wildlife programmes over long periods with reduced budgets? Many types of programme would be at risk if budgets were cut substantially.
There is a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House because Conservative Members seem to think that the Bill is essential because of new technology. Technology is marvellous, but it is our servant and not our master. The technology of satellite and cable television enables us to make better programmes and any programme-maker who allows technology to get ahead of the story—to spin screens round, and all the other incredible things that can be done, which I can barely understand despite having made programmes in the past—will not improve the quality of the programme. The basic story line and concept must be good. If the Government have the will to regulate satellite and cable television properly to ensure that they are the servants of programme standards and that technology is not the master, they will be successful.
I fear that the real motive behind the Bill is not the stated one. I absolve a fair few Conservative Members who are in their places because I am sure that, by definition, they are those who have doubts about the Bill. I fear that the real motive is that the Government prefer to receive their news and current affairs via The Sun rather than "World in Action". They are happier in a world where the Daily Star provides the information about what is going on in the world and not "First Tuesday". They are not so interested in that outstanding documentary programme, which was the first to spell out the innocence of the Guildford Four. I wonder how many people wish that events which take place in the United Kingdom were not examined in detail by means of investigative journalism.
In 1987, the broadcasting research unit of the Home Office reported on the public's view of their sources of news and information. It stated that 67 per cent. cited television as the medium they most trust, 11 per cent. cited radio, and 8 per cent. cited newspapers. I am stunned that the percentage citing newspapers was so high, but it is clear that under the present regulatory framework the public see television as their most reliable source of news and current affairs. I am not surprised that some Conservative Members look forward to the day when newspapers and not television will be the main source of public information on news and current affairs. The House would be spending its time far more effectively if it were seeking ways whereby the press, as an important medium of current affairs, was brought up to the standards of broadcasting. Instead, however, the philosophy behind the Bill seems to be to drag broadcasting down to the standards of the press.
Behind the Bill lies a distessing philosophy. I regard television as a miraculous medium. It is one that I barely understand despite having worked in it, and one with a phenomenal capacity to communicate to peoples of all nations. How do the Government respond to the miracle of this means of communication and its miraculous extension through cable and satellite technology? They ask themselves how much money they can make out of it, how much they can get from the auctioning of franchises and whether it will satisfy the advertisers—a depressing, mean-spirited, narrow-minded response to a marvellous means of communication.
My right hon. Friends and I rejoice at what telvision can do. We do not want it reduced to musak in the lift, as


in the United States and most other countries where there has been deregulation. We want to see television used for what it is within a proper regulatory framework. That is the only way of guaranteeing real choice and real standards. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two sides of the House, and if we accept the Bill we shall be going down the road towards pap.

Mr. Julian Critchley: If I hesitate for a moment before speaking, it is only to allow time for my aunt to come in from the garden—

Mrs. Dunwoody: What was she doing out in the dark?

Mr. Critchley: She has a lavatory at the bottom of the garden.
Last year I was invited by a friend in the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] No, but he invited me to speak at a supper club in his constituency. I shall not say where, merely that if we divided the map of the United Kingdom into four quarters, it would fall in the south-western quarter. Conservative Members know what such occasions are like. If I recount the menu—half a grapefruit with one red, Cyclopian eye in the middle; rubber chicken with half a tinned apricot or peach looking rather like a fried egg—it is only to explain to the House what my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has endured for the past four years.
The subject of my speech at the supper club in the south-western quarter was broadcasting. I chose it for a purpose, because broadcasting is one subject about which most Conservatives know absolutely nothing, but about which we hold very strong views. In the demonology of our great party—and by God, our demonology is full of candidates of one kind or another—the BBC holds a very special place. Sooty and sulphurous, the corporation has, or so it is believed, a long history of letting down the side. It is unBritish—its reporting during the Falklands war; it is snide—it makes jokes about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; it is limply impartial—when events call for a robust partiality.
I am sorry to say that, for a certain sort of Conservative, the BBC is certainly not one of us. In consequence, it has been given until 1996 and has been restricted to a licence fee that can raise no additional money—it is simply indexed—to enable it to meet the challenge of Channels 3, 4 and 5. Was not the BBC described by someone who lives not a million miles from Downing street as a nest of Marxists? If so, given the events in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, it deserves to be made a protected species.
The Bill has its origins in the White Paper, which in turn sprang from the loins of a Cabinet Sub-Committee. That Sub-Committee was presided over by the Prime Minister herself. There is nothing new in that; most of them are. However, it included the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was his idea that the franchises should be auctioned to the highest bidder to raise the maximum amount of revenue for the Treasury. I understand that he is doing something like that with his memoirs.
To return to my speech at the supper club—

Mrs. Dunwoody: It may be the only one for some time.

Mr. Critchley: That is my ambition.
My audience appeared to regard the BBC as the enemy—"that Robin Day"—while ITV was judged in part by the irreverence of "Spitting Image" and by what many saw as the Left-wing bias of its news and current affairs. I found that extremely disturbing. They had no wish to see their distinguished Members of Parliament on the telly. Bringing the cameras into the House would, I was told, encourage politics—by which, of course, they meant the politics of our opponents. Conservative Members, as we all know, have nothing to do with politics of any sort.
It is well known that the Home Office is in something of a fix. On the one hand it believes—or its masters believe—in deregulation. Some of them believe in the magic of the market. To a Manchester liberal, and we have far too many of them in the Tory party, more does not mean worse; it means giving the man in the street what he craves—32 buttons on his television set, each one giving him access to one form of "Neighbours" or another. Such Manchester liberals are the worst sort of elitists. As my hon. Friend "the other Walden" has written:
They shelter their children in expensive preparatory schools while handing over other people's children to the forces of the markets.
On the other hand—this is the fix in which the Home Office finds itself—the Home Office, or some of its masters, is worried about sex. Lord Rees-Mogg has been recalled to the colours with the sole purpose of defending the nation against the heated imagination of Mr. Dennis Potter. We live in a country in which nanny insists that we wash our hands before lunch, while she washes her hands of what we do between breakfast and lunchtime.
We should not permit the franchises to fall into the hands of the highest bidder. A channel on television is a scarce resource and must be allocated to the applicant who submits the most impressive prospectus. The Minister has already said—I think on the BBC—that nothing in the BBC is set in stone. In that case, will he consider my suggestion that his proposal on auctioneering should be stood on its head? There should be a simple rent, set by and payable to the Government. The other bid, over and above that, should be the amount of money that the rivals are prepared to spend on programmes—not on soaps, game shows or cheap Australian imports, because we already suffer from a form of Australian cultural imperialism—but on drama, news and current affairs. Unless that concession is clearly made, I do not think that I shall vote for the Bill.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Bill gives us an opportunity to review the whole question of radio and television. The review must be used not to weaken existing standards, but to reaffirm the true role of broadcasting, which is to inform, educate and entertain. It is sad that the Government appear to be using the opportunity to sell stations to the highest bidders. The quality threshold must be regarded as a plateau, not as an obstacle to be jumped and disregarded later. The "highest bidder" concept is wrong as it cannot be in the best interests of viewers or the country to place such a powerful medium into the hands of those whose only qualification might be that they are richer than anyone else.
I welcome the establishment of the Broadcasting Standards Council and will be watching closely to see how it uses the powers given to it under part V. However, I am


concerned that under clause 129 certain cable and microwave transmission services seem to be excluded from the scope of the council's monitoring. If we are to have such a council, it should be responsible for examining all broadcasting services without exception. Perhaps the Minister will explain why, under part II, some licensed services are excluded from the council's responsibility?
Like the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I am surprised and disappointed that the Bill gives so little support to the deaf and hard of hearing. I had hoped that, with about 4 million viewers falling into that category, much more consideration would have been given to their needs. I hope that amendments will be passed in Committee to provide more facilities for the deaf, and I was pleased to hear what the Minister said earlier on that matter.
The restriction on Christian broadcasting is resented by many people, especially in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland agree fully with the concerns expressed in Great Britain about religious bodies being restricted from being involved in broadcasting. Under the provisions of schedule 2, such bodies can have no involvement in holding television service licences. Clause 83 places restrictions on editorial control of radio programmes. As was said earlier, that will disadvantage an existing Christian output on a cable channel. The Cable Authority has said that it regrets that the new legislation is "unnecessarily restrictive". I know that the Minister has received many representations on that issue and I urge him to think again and to allow Christian or religious bodies to compete in the marketplace in the same way as other groups.
I draw the House's attention to how the Bill will affect Northern Ireland. Provision is made in clauses 139 and 140 to bring television and radio under the obscenity law in England, Scotland and Wales. I was surprised to see that no similar provision has been made for Northern Ireland. Citizens in Northern Ireland should enjoy the same protection from obscene material as citizens in the rest of the kingdom. Perhaps the Minister can explain how that has happened and, if necessary, ensure that an amendment to the Bill is tabled in Committee.
I support the properly controlled but urgent evolution of radio in Ulster. I ask the Minister to say what criteria will be used by the new authority to decide how many stations are desirable and where those stations will be located. How and where will those criteria be obtained?
Radio enthusiasts in Ulster think that there is room for between six and 20 new stations in Northern Ireland. At present there is general agreement that Radio Ulster, Radio Foyle and Downtown Radio provide a good service for their own section of the market. However, there is clear evidence of a large audience looking for a different format.
That evidence is the undoubted success of stations based in the Irish Republic which beam programmes into Fermanagh and Armagh, Newry and Craigavon, as far up as Belfast and in the north-west of the Province. It becomes more imperative every day that new local Northern Ireland companies are given the opportunity to cater for that obvious market and thus provide an exciting and creative radio industry in Ulster, so that in the words of the Bill they can offer
a wide range of programmes
for a
variety of tastes and interests

Northern Ireland has been well served for 30 years by our existing television station—Ulster Television—which, as a result of hard work, dedication and expertise, has become a success in terms of viewing figures, profitability and local esteem. It is a great compliment that Northern Ireland people know it as "our station". Ulster Television employs about 270 staff and produces 400 hours of wide-ranging and diverse programmes a year. It is committed to grant-aiding the arts and sciences and provides sponsorship for sport, education and job creation to the tune of 5 per cent. of its annual television profit. Its board and management are involved in the life of the community and most of its reporters and presenters are from the Province.
Despite 21 years of terrorism, the station has managed to overcome the problems presented by a divided society and separate cultures, to become fully accepted by the whole community. That praiseworthy position is due to the company being locally owned and controlled. It is a remarkable achievement and is made even more so when one considers the subtleties of circumstances in Northern Ireland.
We must not lose sight of the many extra disadvantages that will be faced even by a local company. Sales revenue from Channel 4 will be lost. There will be increased competition from Channel 4, Channel 5 and five satellite channels. The privatisation of transmitters will impose extra costs and, on top of that, there will be the unquantifiable burden of tendering. Sadly, the IBA's most recent financial projection is more negative than before.
Right hon. and hon. Members do not need to be reminded of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. The presentation of sensitive material requires careful handling and the careless use of information could, in extreme circumstances, result in tragedy. The emphasis on the wrong word or the careless use of a phrase can cause anger in some sections of the community. Because of those real difficulties, it is essential that broadcasting in Northern Ireland should be controlled and manned by local people who are sensitive to local problems. It could be a disaster if control of television were to fall into the hands of people lacking the inside knowledge that it so essential to anyone involved in the media in Northern Ireland.
I make the House aware of those many problems hoping that the Minister in his reply will concede the necessity for dealing with Northern Ireland in a different but sympathetic way so that in Ulster we will have not only a truly local operation but a viable one, too.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The White Paper that heralded the Bill is entitled "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality." I favour competition and choice, but the greatest of the three is quality. In a sense, that is the theme and essence of today's debate. It is the particular job of Government to ensure that the best of our culture is handed on from one generation to the next, and we are right to examine the Bill to see what it contributes to what I regard as the battle to preserve and enhance our civilisation.
A number of simple actions can be taken. One would be to make Radio 3 audible throughout the country. It is infuriating to drive to one's constituency, only to find that Radio 3 has disappeared from the airwaves. I would much


rather see Radio I converted to Radio 3 than the present situation continue to exist. Other matters are more difficult and complex to resolve. Notable among them is the way in which ITV contracts are to be allocated, and I shall deal with that aspect later.
The Government have taken a number of wise decisions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was right to point out that Channel 4 has been safeguarded. As he said, it was a great Tory invention. He is right also to keep the BBC basically intact. Three of the four existing channels will remain as they are; although, goodness knows, they are far from perfect, by and large they provide a reasonably good service. Those are all, in essence, decisions for achieving quality.
The most vexed question is how the ITV contracts should be allocated. When it comes to Channel 5, I hope that its boundaries will not be coterminous with those of Channel 3. In the present system, there is a strong bias in favour of the conurbations. I represent a part of the country that is commonly described as part of the home counties, and which is not a conurbation. As a result, it enjoys virtually no regional broadcasting. It is beginning to be served by local radio stations, but long after the conurbations. To be fair, Central Television has set up a Central (South) region, which goes some way to meeting the problem, and I congratulate it on that. Nevertheless, I hope that Channel 5 will not observe the same old boundaries.
Most important of all is the allocation of the contracts for Channel 3. The question of auctioning or tendering for that channel is the main problem. Of course there are vested interests, and special pleadings galore. We all know that the existing franchise holders badly want to win the contracts again, and are arguing as hard as they can that that should be so. However, the doubts go beyond that aspect, and I share some of them.
We do not know whether the Government's proposed system will drag down quality. Perhaps it would be worth reaching a compromise whereby only Channel 5 is allocated under the new tendering system. We can then see how that works out, while continuing to operate the present system of awarding franchises for Channel 3—perhaps for a shorter period than five or seven years. At the end of that period, we can make a judgment on whether the tendering system has the drawbacks that have been attributed to it, or whether it works perfectly satisfactorily. I like the idea of more competition, but we should wait to see how the tendering system works in one instance before committing ourselves to a major step, and one that could prove damaging.
Clause 33 seems to me to be unnecessary. It empowers the Independent Television Commission to require Channels 3, 4 and 5 to transmit party political broadcasts. Surely we are here presented with an opportunity to dispense with such broadcasts. We all know perfectly well that they range from the mediocre to the mendacious. Few people in our country, from whatever quarter they may come, would defend them. There is a serious reason for dispensing with party political broadcasts. The current experiment in televising this House is succeeeding and the decision to broadcast our proceedings is unlikely to be

reversed. It would be far better if, every day, five minutes more could be broadcast from this House, and there were no more party political broadcasts.
Perhaps the Bill should be a little more adventurous about impartiality in television programmes. Clause 6 focuses on that important aspect. I do not suggest for one moment that news programmes should be other than impartial, but perhaps we ought to accept the possibility that some programmes should be licensed to be partial rather than impartial. Mention has already been made of "World in Action", which everybody acknowledges is a radical programme with a strong political slant. Why not allow "World in Action" to come clean, but then ensure that a corresponding programme is broadcast with a bias in the opposition direction? Why should we pretend that everything is so dispassionate when that is evidently not the case?
The most important among the points I have made is that concerning the award of contracts, which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will consider sympathetically.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I must admit that my poor dear aunt is no longer with me, and I am unsure how long it will take her to home in on the speech that I want to make. Nevertheless, I draw the attention of the House to one aspect that I believe is tremendously important. Most right hon. and hon. Members, when speaking about television, have in common the fact that, although they talk about television, they never watch it. Most right hon. and hon. Members do not even watch television when they are on it themselves. That is the greatest sacrifice that any politician can make. However, every day a substantial percentage of the population use television as a means of obtaining not only information and education but plain enjoyment. That is not only wonderful but something we should encourage.
The Bill fails to deal with the most important sector of the television audience, which is children. Our country has a long history of making high-quality and varied children's television programmes. Specific attempts were made, originally by the BBC and then by ITV, to programme for different age groups and to produce not only traditional stories but original material. I am deeply concerned that the Bill provides no specific safeguards for that sector.
I have for some time endeavoured to obtain from the hon. and learned Minister of State a guarantee that he is prepared to write standards for children's broadcasting into the Bill. With surprising modesty, he has not been prepared to give me a specific answer. He seems to believe that, if there is lots and lots of television, that must automatically be good for children, but that is neither my experience nor that of many parents.
In fact, there are considerable reservations about the present trend among ITV companies. Some of their original children's programmes have been cancelled, while new material has not been developed. There are clear signs that, as financial horns have been drawn in, children's programmes are suffering disproportionately. The increase in the number of television channels has not brought an automatic improvement in quality but has frequently meant observance of the lowest common denominator. That is noticeable in the BBC as well as among the ITV companies.

Mr. Gale: Surely the hon. Lady acknowledges that there has never been any statutory provision of any kind in respect of children's entertainment in the charter of the BBC or the IBA. The only company about which I know a great deal, Thames Television, increased its children's programme staff and produced more children's programmes last year than ever before.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Many considerations are not written into charters. Like many institutions, television operates not to written rules but largely to unwritten rules—for example, in respect of the transmission of foreign material.
When Doreen Stephens was head of family programmes at the BBC, she said that one of her points of principle was
the duty and responsibility to use the medium of television to enrich and enlarge the child's experience.
She felt that children should be stimulated by the programmes they watched, so that television did not serve purely as an automatic nursemaid. Her other principles were:
That children should be entertained and enjoy the programmes they watch.
That children should be treated with respect as people, without condescension or concession.
That children should not be over-protected in the choice and presentation of the content of their programmes.
We should take care to ensure that all those principles are incorporated in any future planning for the expansion of television. We must accept that, if we simply allow television to become a matter of open competition, we shall increasingly see an influx of the type of children's material which has the specific aim of selling toys, and developing particular commercial involvements.
Small children and children up to their early teens do not have sufficient experience to be automatically choosy about the quality of the material they watch. That does not mean that we should assume a certain level of censorship, but we must be careful to ensure that they are not subject to sleazy, low quality, narrowly aimed material.
I have considerable doubts about some of the programmes shown now. I do not look at children's television any more; I look at ordinary television. But I have a secret army—mostly called Dunwoody, most of whom have small children—who give me acute accounts of what is shown. They are already concerned about children's programmes that include torture chambers or that use poor English and about a number of game shows in which small children are subjected to indignities that are not in their interest and can upset them. That is already happening.
As the Bill develops, I hope that we shall have a calm understanding that children's material is not cheap to make, but is often as expensive as adult programmes, and that it takes a long time to get a return on the original material.
Children's programmes do not automatically mean cartoon films imported from America. Nor should they be a demonstration of a particular form of game show or, dare I say it, low-quality imported material from parts of the world where they manage to make a series of programmes and need to make a profit by circulating them as widely as possible, irrespective of what that does to the audience.
I want good children's programmes, and I want my children and grandchildren to be proud of an industry that

for a long time has put specialised programmes for children of different ages high on its list, and has been appreciated worldwide for the quality of its programmes.
I can see nothing in the Bill that will safeguard the material shown on television. I have heard nothing in what the Minister has said today that makes it clear that the Government intend to build safeguards into the Bill in Committee, and it is for precisely those reasons that I shall vote against the Bill tonight.
A country that sells its children short in culture, literature or in the material that they enjoy daily in their homes, is a pretty miserable, tatty country. We have to ensure that that is not the United Kingdom.

Mr. Roger Gale: I declare an interest as a member of British Equity, a member of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians and a member of the television branch of the National Union of Journalists.
There are 167 clauses in the Bill. Those right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Home Affairs Select Committee will be gratified to see that many of our findings are reflected in many of those clauses.
Hon. Members who hope to serve on the Standing Committee will wish to consider a number of issues. We shall want to re-examine the "must carry" provisions that will be lost with the abolition of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, and we may seek to reimpose a must-carry provision for BBC1 and 2. We should reconsider the provisions currently mooted for Channel 4, to determine whether it is realistic to ask the competitor companies that operate Channel 3 to underwrite and promote Channel 4's programmes. We may need to reconsider the Secretary of State's right or need to be able to veto the non-executive directors of Channel 4.
We may need to consider cross-ownership, with particular reference to community radio. My hon. and learned Friend may like to think about the many local newspapers that might be able to provide a better service to the reading and listening public, if they were able to own community radio stations.
We may have to reconsider the provisions for Channel 5 and the network arrangements that will exist in a new Channel 3. Undoubtedly, we shall need to consider further the difference between cross-media ownership and intra-television ownership. We shall certainly want to examine the provisions for deaf viewers. The privatisation of ITV transmission systems will need detailed consideration, and the provisions for broadcasting data and teletext will need to be examined.
None of those issues has been discussed in any depth in the House this afternoon. I am particularly sad that the debate has effectively been hijacked by the self-styled Campaign for Quality Television which largely represents the huge financial interests of some huge companies.
I am a television director and producer by trade and I have produced a large number—

Mr. Walden: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gale: I have very little time, and I know that my hon. Friend seeks to make a speech in a moment.

Mr. Walden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support the Campaign for Quality Television,


and I wish to make it clear, after the rather offensive remark of my hon. Friend, that, unlike him, I have absolutely no economic or financial links with television.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member should be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Gale: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) will endeavour to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will make his speech in due course. The Campaign for Quality Television has the backing of some large vested interests.
Out of 167 clauses in an important Bill, very few have received more than scant attention from the media, which has sought, or has only been able, to focus on one issue. At the moment, I am reasonably satisfied that the arrangements made by BBC1 and 2, and the provision for the remit of Channel 4, will provide quality television, as I define it, as a producer and director. I am also satisfied that the quality threshold for Channel 3 will provide a satisfactory structure for the future of that channel.
In Committee, hon. Members will need to reconsider the other provisions of the Bill, and perhaps give the ITC the right to take into account the value of quality bids made by those who enter their auction room.
The Bill sets up a framework for broadcasting into the 20th century. By the year 2020, it is likely that every household in the country will have a cinema-style screen, 1·5 in deep, hanging on the wall, that will bring a choice of 20 to 30 channels via satellite transmission, cable head end and interactive cable. A person will be able to sit in an armchair at home watching the television, see an advertisement for a product, recall it at the end of the programme, view it through a mail order catalogue or review the commercial, decide on the merits of the product, order it and pay for it through interactive cable. That is technically possible now, as is the provision of home education—I thought that that would have appealed to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham—home shopping, home banking and home medicine.
If anyone has any doubt about whether that is possible, I quote briefly from a press release from British Telecom, dated 14 November 1989, which says:
The Government has given the green light to British Telecom's trial of its pioneering communications vision for the 21st century.
This will use optical fibre 'pipelines' carrying television, high fidelity stereo-radio, telephone calls, information technology and other interactive services to houses and businesses.
The company has been granted a special licence … to convey into integrated voice telephony and entertainment television over a trial optical fibre network at Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire.
The licence runs from October 21, 1989 to December 31, 1992.
That system will probably be up and running in homes by the end of next summer. The House is confronted with a colossal potential. An enormous opportunity will be presented to programme-makers, programme-providers and everyone in the entertainment industry, and it is depressing that many right hon. and hon. Members and people outside regard the Bill not as an opportunity but as a threat.
It is vital that we seize the opportunity with both hands, that we try to prevent the waste of time and energy on warring satellite systems, that we pursue in the interests of

the United Kingdom the development of satellite delivery and above all, that we pursue and encourage the development of fibre-optic cable systems.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) into the realms of science fiction because the Bill seems to me to be essentially about ideology and interference—the Prime Minister's Meddlesome Matty syndrome—in a system which "ain't broke, is doing quite well and don't need fixing".
The Bill is not about pluralism. Pluralism and competing channels are with us already. The Bill will add only one—fifth—television channel, which has unlikely prospects in any case. We welcome pluralism. It adds excitement, interest and diversity. The problem is to provide for standards, for quality and for production in the new pluralistic environment.
Pluralism—having more channels—must weaken basic provision through the duopoly. It drains away money and viewers. On the whole, the effect on the networks in the United States has been adverse. In such circumstances, we should strengthen the basic provision. That is what people will continue to rely on. It will continue to provide the basic continuity of production and the basic quality of television in Britain. We should strengthen it in the face of the threat of more competition and more pluralism. It can survive. I am not saying that it will disappear and disintegrate, but the Government are compounding the problems caused by more competition by aiming a body blow at existing channels, the existing duopoly and the existing basic production facilities.
The Government believe that the market will provide. That just does not work in the media. Indeed, the reverse is the case. The more open and unregulated the market is, and the more intense the competition in the media, the more organisations are driven down market, the more standards fall and the more they are driven to the lowest common denominator. Anyone who wants proof of that should consider the quality of the British popular press, which is totally unregulated and in intense competition, and compare it with the American popular press, which is effectively protected by local monopolies which give it some insulation from competition.

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: Contrast British television, which is regulated and not that intensely competitive, with American television and its standards. Those two examples prove that the market does not provide for quality. It drives down to the lowest common denominator—

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: No.
We are in danger of producing that in British television. We sustain standards—

Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman is talking so fiercely about competition, would it not be in order for him to declare his personal interest in this matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has a financial or other interest in this matter, he must declare it. I am sure he will declare it.

Mr. Mitchell: My interests are declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I present a programme for Sky Television. If that is the only point that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) wants to make, it is trivial and irrelevant.
The remorseless drive down market by intense competition will be compounded by the Bill. The Government are damaging the existing structures of television. They are doing that, first, by the slow strangulation of the BBC through a licence fee which has not kept up with inflation and thus reduces the pool of money available to television and weakens the BBC in the longer term. I am sorry that the BBC has stayed out of this argument, congratulating itself on coming through unscathed in the Bill, because it will suffer in the future.
Secondly, the Bill scoops out more revenue for the Treasury from the pool of money available for television production. That reduces the money available for quality. The Economist suggested that money that is siphoned out should be used for production of quality. That is an admirable solution, but it is not what will happen under these proposals. Thirdly, the Bill weakens the existing structure by the insane auction system to which the Government have stuck so obstinately that it must be the Prime Minister's baby. That is the only explanation for the obstinacy with which the Government are sticking to their ridiculous auction idea, which removes all discretion from the ITC and opens the door to the media barons and especially to the continentals, whom we cannot prevent from coming in.
While the Government may not view the prospect of Berlisconi in Barnsley with any great horror, when it comes to Bertlesman in Basildon or Hachette in Harpenden, their electors will begin to take a different view. The bidders will just not know how much to bid. They will be in competition with people who are buying contracts for status, or for other reasons. That will siphon more money out of the pool available for quality production. That clause must be altered. The Minister has suggested that we should take account of the overall interests of the viewer, and that that might be a way to alter the arrangement, because the continuity of "Coronation Street", "Emmerdale Farm" and "The Bill" will be far more important to the viewer. That might allow us a way to alter it, but the clause must be altered.
The fourth thing that the Government are doing to harm existing structures is to loosen regulations. We hear of the light touch, but they do not want the light touch when it comes to matters moral. They have Lord Rees-Mogg free to pursue his masturbatory fantasies across the screen, pursuing the nipple count or the coitus coefficient. There is no light touch there. They want a heavy hand—the sweaty, heavy hand—when it comes to regulation in that respect. The real problem is not that kind of standard, but standards of quality and of production. The Broadcasting Standards Council has no remit there—when it comes to quality, excellence and good television, the Government want a light touch.
The IBA has done a good job. The light touch has worked there. It has provided for the effective development of good production centres in the regions. It has provided for quality centres of excellence in the

regions, which it is important to sustain. The Bill does not adequately sustain either by insisting on local production for the regions and for the network. We have to have both. Production has to be local—in Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester—because it is more expensive to do it there than in London. It costs about £100,000 more to produce Yorkshire Television's "A Bit of a Do" in Leeds—to which it brings jobs, and where it adds to the local centre of excellence and uses local skills—than it would in London.
The Bill will undermine such regional production. I am worried about the effect of such changes on current affairs coverage. When current affairs programmes lose about a third of the audience with which they start, why should companies go to the trouble of supporting staff to inquire with the trenchant journalism of "Death on the Rock", which the Government clearly hate, when they can put on a mindless chat show or an import at far lower cost? Why should they produce culture or an arts programme? I am worried by the falling standards which I saw this year in entries to the British Petroleum arts journalism competition of which I am a judge. Why should companies bother to produce such programmes when they cost so much?
The Bill makes no provision for networking, but that is crucial when it comes to costs. How will programmes be networked? Will there be open war between different companies, as there was at the start of independent television, which would be enormously expensive?
I am worried about what is happening to television now. The latest schedules are most disappointing. They are unimaginative. There are no big projects, no interesting ideas and no innovation. Companies are instead taking on a fight with their staff to drive down wages and conditions or to sack a large number of them, thus impairing their capacity to produce programmes. If that is a sign of what is to come, it is a sign of a desire to get more money out so that they can make a bigger bid to keep the contract. It is also a sign that standards are bound to decline because resources devoted to production at regional centres of quality and excellence, where skills feed on each other, will be weakened and undermined. Independent production is no substitute.
I am worried about the basic principles of a Bill which provides for more channels, but not for more revenue, more effective maintenance of standards or close regulation to provide better quality television in Britain. It is a doctrinaire Bill which bears no relevance to the problems of production in Britain. It aims a body blow at the industry in which Britain leads the world and it offers the television viewer nothing but a debasement of standards.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Many Christians believe that, if the Bill is not amended, the Christian voice on television and radio will be increasingly gagged in the coming years. I should like to make four points in support of that. First, the Bill denies any religious body the right to own or operate a television station. Secondly, the Bill ensures the sole right of secular ownership of all television stations. Thirdly, the Bill does not ensure that commercial radio or television will continue to include religious programmes. Fourthly, the Bill does not ensure that Christian bodies will have the freedom to sponsor programmes on television.
The Bill should ensure that commercial radio and television stations are required to broadcast religious programmes. It should ensure that Christian and other religious bodies are permitted to participate in broadcasting in exactly the same way as every other group in society. If political and commercial interests can present their cases on television, that right should be granted to Christian and other religious bodies. Christian bodies are permitted to publish books or newspapers. They have the right to participate in running hospices, playgroups, sheltered dwellings, rehabilitation centres, schools, unemployment projects, AIDS hospitals and community centres, so why not television stations under proper regulation? As many religious bodies aim to strengthen family relationships and encourage honesty, self-sacrifice and discipline, instead of putting up a barrier to them, the Government should encourage them.
If commercial interests alone are to control the spiritual output of commercial broadcasting, how can it be responsible and balanced? If the future of broadcasting is really to offer choice, why are viewers and listeners to be denied the choice of what Christians and other religious bodies can offer?
Northern Ireland, has been well served by the independent broadcasters. Downtown Radio has maintained a very high standard, as has Ulster Television. I agree with my colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), that there is room and opportunity for other local radio and television broadcasters in the Province.
We are informed that the Government have set their face against a new radio station in the north-west of the Province. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the Government have in mind for community and commercial radio in Northern Ireland. What is happening? Business interests are now busily engaged in buying up the opportunities that are afforded to them in the south of Ireland. A powerful radio station operates half a mile from the Londonderry border. Commercial interests have to go to the South of Ireland to broadcast. That opportunity should be localised, and business interests in Northern Ireland should have the right to their own broadcasting stations and the ability to present acceptable programmes to the people. I trust that the Government will give that careful consideration, because it is important that commercial and community broadcasting is developed right across the Province and not limited as it is now.
I want to place on record the fact that the two independent services—Downtown Radio and Ulster Television—have provided an excellent service and deserve the praise of the community. I am sorry that I cannot say the same for the BBC in Northern Ireland, which seems to be more interested in spending the money raised from television licences on programmes that cause an outcry across the political and religious divide because of their obscenity and blasphemy. I want to stress that in the House tonight.
It is important that community radio in Northern Ireland is ordered to present to the localities that it serves programmes that will be helpful, good for the children and good for the community. Northern Ireland has a great well of talent, and that talent should be used. How better than

in the new broadcasting scheme? Therefore, I trust that the Government will keep those matters in mind when they make their decision.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friends have already made much of the fundamental case against the Bill, so, in the short time available, I shall concentrate on its impact on Welsh television and broadcasting.
In one sense, I felt a measure of relief in looking at the Bill, at least in regard to the provisions relating to S4C. In general, those clauses have accepted the continuing role of S4C. The road has not been easy as a difficult and delicate balance has to be struck in Welsh television. In my view, S4C has been successful in the remit that Parliament gave it when it was established—to provide a comprehensive service for the Welsh language.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to two aspects of the Bill which might endager that success. I shall deal with one now and one later in my remarks. First, during the 1990s, S4C will be greatly dependent on the buoyancy and impact of advertising. If that advertising declines, as many forecasts suggest, there may be a financial crisis for S4C somewhere in the mid-term of its next period of service. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider the concept of a safety net to deal with such a problem, should it arise. I shall make my second point about S4C later in my speech, as it relates to the role and relationship of Channel 5 to Welsh broadcasting and Welsh television.
Having made those few placatory remarks, on the central issue of the auctioning of franchises and the licensing of the one commercial television station in Wales—it will therefore be not only our regional but national commercial station—I share every one of the fears, worries and concerns that have been expressed, not only for the reasons given by my hon. Friends but for the further reason mentioned briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). At least, under the current system, a television company that seeks the powerful monopolistic commercial television franchise in Wales must justify its presence in Wales. Its studios, board of directors and supervisory management must all belong to and identify with the society that they serve.
The Bill provides for programmes of a regional character, but there is not one provision that will compel the highest bidder for a regional or national franchise to have a regional or national presence in Wales or oblige its board of directors or supervisory management to identify and have roots with the region or nation that they plan to serve. I am glad to say that, under the present arrangements, because the franchise is for HTV West and HTV Wales, the IBA has insisted on dual representation at board and supervisory level and at programme and production level.
I shall no doubt continue to have many quarrels with HTV; there is bound to be creative tension in the relationship between a local politican and the local media. I have no brief to speak for HTV Wales, but I cannot deny that it is rooted in Wales, that it identifies with Wales, that its management are Welsh and that it has a major regional and national presence. I frequently quarrel with it, but I cannot deny its Welshness, its sense of identity, its sense of belonging and its roots in the society from which its money


comes. There is not one provision in the Bill that will ensure that the highest bidder for a franchise will have such a presence, such roots or such an identity.
The lack of identity is reflected in the watchdog arrangements. Except for one measly paragraph at the bottom of the lengthy schedule 1, there is no provision for the ITC in Wales to establish a regional or national presence. I hope that the Minister will assure us that it will have a Welsh identity. Will there be an advisory committee, or a sensitive and able directorate such as that represented by Mr. Eirion Lewis and his staff at the Welsh IBA? The Bill offers no assurance of that, merely a paragraph saying that it may be possible to establish some advisory committee structure.
The public are shut out of such operations. At least under the existing arrangements, however flawed they might be, when franchises came up for renewal there was some attempt at public consultation. The viewers served by the franchise holder were able to express their views. The system may have been flawed and may not have operated as effectively as it should have, but at least a process of public consultation was required.
The Bill makes no provision for proper public consultation on decisions about who shall hold the licence in a region or, in our case, in Wales. Therefore, a large proportion of the Welsh public will be shut out of taking part or being involved in any shape or form in the process of deciding who shall control the national commercial monopoly in Wales and what programmes and schedules it offers.
I want to bring to the attention of the House a matter that has not been discussed so far—the function and role of Channel 5. I have a map showing its predicted coverage and the fact that significant and important parts of the Principality will not receive it. I am sure that the constituency of hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) will not be covered, but neither will most of the valley communities. Most of our television is received through relay stations, and if the proposed system for Channel 5 goes ahead, significant areas of the Principality—and, indeed, of the rest of Britain—will not be covered by it.
The figure of 70 per cent. coverage for Channel 5 covers many problems, but I want to explain to the House the impact that that may have on the delicate balance and consensus that has been achieved on broadcasting and television in Wales. At present, S4C is an alternative to Channel 4. There are many frustrations among people who want to see Channel 4 programmes in Wales, but fortunately we can say that sooner or later, Channel 4 programmes will appear on S4C. However, some of its scheduling is capricious, to say the least. If, on top of that, many people in Wales find that the fifth channel will not be available, the careful and delicate consensus that we have achieved may be destabilised. I can hear the telephone calls coming in now saying, "What is this talk about choice? I couldn't get Channel 4 and now I can't get Channel 5."
Many people along the south Wales coast are turning their eyes and aerials to the Mendips to avoid S4C and to obtain Channel 4. Many communities have not done so and many will not want to do so, but if they have to turn their eyes and aerials to the Mendips to get Channel 5, their anger and frustration will rise and the careful balance that we have achieved in the Principality may be broken.
I should like to refer briefly to the interesting article written by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), in which he described the Bill as being "towards a thicker Britain". There are many variations on that, because I think that it may lead towards a duller Britain. I was reminded of one of the great 18th-century satirists, Alexander Pope. In his poem, "The Dunciad", he described the Empress of Dulness in the following terms:
See now, what Dulness and her sons admire;
See! what the charms, that smite the simple heart
Not touch'd by Nature and not reach'd by Art.
That could be an epitaph to the Bill, unless we are able to change the hearts and minds not only of the Empress of Dulness but of her sons, too.

Sir Giles Shaw: I must disclose my interest as the independent chairman of the Broadcasters Audience Research Board, which was set up by the BBC and ITV companies as part of the Annan report's recommendations.
I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that the Government are to be congratulated on providing, in this massive Bill, a wide review of all broadcasting services—terrestrial, satellite and radio. They have brought before the House contentious legislation, which is fair enough, and comprehensive legislation, which gives us the opportunity to consider the spectrum and use of the air waves which, for so long, we have been denied. The release of additional space on spectra and other airwaves was negotiated for ages in Geneva and enables us now to start planning broadcasting's future—for television and radio.
I wholly applaud much of the Bill, including the fact that at long last radio is coming out from under and making its own case. It will now have its own authority and can develop vastly, whether it be nationally, regionally, or on a multi-community basis. We welcome that. It must be of huge interest to all hon. Members and is a matter for congratulation.
It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I welcome the Welshness of HTV, about which he waxed so eloquently. He put absolutely into context the fact that regional television in this country has grown up, flourished and will continue. I am especially grateful that the Bill's discussion of television embodies the commitment to the regional system. I am also grateful to Mr. George Russell, the current chairman of the IBA and shortly to be chairman of ITC, who has confirmed that in his view the map should remain largely unchanged.
Regionalisation is the real key to this issue. We should not be discussing anxieties about the auctioning of franchises and bids were it not for the recommendations of the Peacock committee. If my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State does not already know this, I must confess that there was nothing as surprising as the report of the Peacock committee. After all, the committee was inquiring into the financing of the BBC, but it came up with no recommendations for advertising on the BBC. That was the greatest possible surprise. Even the hon. Member for Great Gatsby—Grimms' fairy tale country as I now know it to be—accepts that it is a matter of total ignorance to many people. As one of those who was involved at the time, I must stress that it was confidently expected that the report would inevitably provide the answer to the ITV-BBC problem. It was said that there


would be national television advertising from another totally accepted national channel which would bring the ITV and BBC systems into clear competition. However, it was not to be.
Thus, until Channel 4 either has greater audience penetration or until Channel 5 comes along and achieves a national public—albeit of only 70 per cent. of the population—to bring about national competition, we are left with the problem of how to tackle the monopoly of the ITV companies. That is the issue that has given rise to all the fraughtness and fret. It is a duopoly in terms of audiences, but in terms of paid-for advertising space—although I admit Channel 4—we have a major monopoly.
The restraints on awarding franchises to monopolies have put my right hon. and learned Friend into such a twist. That is why we have all these little subtleties of hand, such as the ownership issue and the bearing down on co-ownership. We are saying, "You can have two, but they must not be contiguous," and, "You can have 20 per cent. if you are a newspaper magnate, but you must not touch if you are an advertising agent."
All those funny things are not at all logical. It is absurd to talk about newspapers as though they should be a protected part of the media scene. Good heavens, that was the position way back in 1955 when we first had ITV. There were some anxieties then that television would put newspapers out of business and that they must therefore be given special priority treatment. That was the genesis of this, but now we are discussing "You may or you may not". It is a far-flung thing. I can hear Lord Reith rattling in his urn as he thinks that there is a real threat that the editor of The Times—no less than its owner—might become the owner of a television channel. I can imagine what he would say about that. He would probably rely on his old dictum, "The best form of government is despotism, tempered, of course, by assassination."
We now have a great opportunity. When it comes to determining the regional concepts of the Bill, I urge my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to rooting the new franchises in the regions. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was quite right—production resources must be based in the regions. Therefore, I welcome clause 16(2)(c) which seeks to specify that
regional programmes so included are made within that area".
I like the sound of that, but I warn my right hon. Friend that accommodation addresses will not do. There must be no brass plates on temporary warehouses. We want regional production facilities.
The other side of clause 16 deals with the question of 25 per cent. independent production. Will it require a regional commitment to that percentage or to a proportion of that percentage? If it does not, like the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I fear that there will be an enormous influx of trainloads of people coming up from London to provide such services, but going back and producing the material down here. In giving an accolade to the regional system, one side of the coin must be the location of the roots, in programming content and in production, in the regions concerned.
The absolute method of selection is also causing a fuss. Obviously, there is great difficulty when awarding monopoly franchises, albeit under careful restraint. Those who are to prepare bids must not only attach a tender price

with an annual rental over the 10 years; they will also have to face a substantial levy on the amount of profit that can be earned. Those people will have to be keen to achieve what they want to achieve, bearing in mind that the next five to 10 years of their franchise will see a steady increase in other media that are capable of carrying advertising. They will face steadily increasing competition at a time of heavily increasing costs and, I trust, a great regional commitment to quality programming.
We must trust the ITC. There can be no question from hon. Members of any party that, whatever the difficulties of the IBA to start with, it is now well accepted. The Government want lighter regulation, a heavy involvement in franchises and the auctioning of franchises—and there is, they must accept, a slight inconsistency in that. The Government should trust the commission to determine the qualitative rating of bids placed before it. Indeed, under the existing arrangement, the Government should encourage the commission to intervene in exceptional circumstances. I was glad to receive a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary stating that, because
the ITC will have the power in exceptional circumstances to select a lower bid",
the Bill
will make the award of licences an altogether more open matter
We want to know just what those exceptional circumstances might be. I hope that they will not be too exceptional. I hope that the exceptional circumstance is that we shall have qualitative ratings much higher than the level of the cash put down. I hope that those ratings will allow the ITC to say, "In our best judgment, it would be wrong to proceed with the highest bid on the table because the second highest bid is worth substantially more in terms of the quality that is offered." I hope that the qualitative commitment will be sufficient to be declared an interest compatible with the provisions.
The selection process is on the periphery of this issue. The real issue is the extent to which public service broadcasting and the ITV regime, which is a proud part of public service broadcasting, may or may not conflict with the public interest. At that stage, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must consider whether things have gone too far. I hope that public service broadcasting, as identified in the Bill, will largely follow the public interest. The public interest has supported this system of broadcasting. It has certainly supported the regional concept of broadcasting. It has supported governance by the IBA, albeit now with a slightly looser rein.
It would be tragic if the opportunity now presented for the future of broadcasting were to be lost because of an awful disagreement between the regulating body and the industry, between the industry and the advertisers who pay the industry and between the Government and all sides who will believe that they are not adequately dealing with the nitty-gritty of selection or with raising the last penny from the Treasury. That does not matter one rap compared with the glorious opportunity for seeing another chapter of properly supported, well regionalised television. I wholly commend the Bill.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) made an extremely agreeable speech, but he has been too optimistic


about the meaning of certain words. For example, "exceptional" does not mean what he would have it mean—it is exceptional. The hon. Gentleman was also too optimistic about the impact of the Bill on regional broadcasting. A system which could cause the contraction of the regions from 15 to eight through acquisition is a threat to the regional basis that we have come to accept and which we regard, as the hon. Gentleman does, as central to the attractiveness of television in this country.
The average person in this country watches television for 25½ hours per week, which is about 60 per cent. of the leisure time available to those in work. It cannot be argued that that figure reveals great dissatisfaction with the quality of television today. None the less, new technologies such as satellite, cable and MVDS delivery systems offer new opportunities to cater for specialist and local interests and to provide a wide variety of dedicated channels. As that capability opens out, the requirements of regulations will alter. Competition for advertising revenue is bound to intensify and pressure on the media to boost audience ratings will be increasingly strong. The ability of broadcasters to provide the mix of entertainment, education and information that has hitherto made up the best of British broadcasting is at risk. Most people will not thank a Government who simply multiply the number of buttons that viewers and listeners can press but subtract from the variety and quality. That is the essential threat posed by the Bill.
More than 3,000 submissions have been made since the publication of the White Paper. Most contain comments on the proposal to award licences for television and radio to the highest bidder. The Home Secretary did not show any support for the proposal in response to those submissions, and his absence for a large part of the debate suggests that he is not interested in the views of the House. The junior Minister also absented himself from the debate and is similarly uninterested in it.

Mr. John M. Taylor: He will be back soon.

Mr. Maclennan: The Government treat the views of those who are involved in the industry with complete contempt. The Government's views are under scrutiny. None of those who submitted an opinion in response to the White Paper have supported the proposed blind auction for franchises. Most of those directly involved in broadcasting accept that competition for franchises should be more transparent than in the past, but they have urged—so far, to no avail—that the licensing authority should be empowered to consider not only the bid price but what is offered for that price. To propose a system for auctioning services which does not allow comparisons to be made between price and quality in the name of consumer choice is simply fraudulent. The system advocated in the Bill will maximise Treasury receipts from broadcasting and minimise the funds available for programme making.
Only in respect of Channel 4 does the Bill seek to require the diverse programme content which characterises current broadcasting in Britain. Indeed, the provisions for Channel 4 highlight the weaknesses of the provisions in respect of other channels. The Bill seems to reflect the Government's hatred of the present independent broadcasters, particularly their handling of news and current affairs. The Government's reaction to "Death on the Rock" and to Lord Windlesham's report shows their

prejudices. How else is one to explain the decision—not yet referred to in the debate—to bar the independent television companies from the ownership and editorial control that they now have over the national news service?
The proposal to give the news service to a company or companies nominated by the friends of the Government in the shape of the licensing authorities, brings the Government altogether too close to controlling the news. Incidentally, the provision that the Radio Authority shall seek to require that
undue prominence is not given … to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on religious matters or matters of current political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy
smacks of institutionalised censorship. What is becoming unacceptable in eastern Europe should not become the norm in Britain. How, other than in terms of a vendetta against the media, is one to explain a bidding system which favours large conglomerates over existing specialist television companies? Not only the British conglomerates but European giants such as Hachette and Berlusconi, will be favoured by the proposed system.
The Bill contains no safeguards against takeovers of British companies comparable with the safeguards operated in European countries. It provides no reciprocity. As the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) acknowledged earlier, the Government have been accused of attacking the universities and the Churches as the repositories of independent advice, and that is so, but now it is the turn of independent television to suffer for having offered a platform for independent opinion.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Further to the hon. Gentleman's previous point, does he agree that the danger of using price as the only basis for tendering for new franchises will mean that any European incursion will, by definition, by irresistible because any other method would be ruled out of order by European laws and directives?

Mr. Maclennan: That is absolutely correct. I believe that the solution would be to limit the stake of any one company in a channel. The system of franchise allocation can be explained only in terms of a vendetta. One need go no further, but further evidence is the unbelievably favourable position of the franchisee following the award of a franchise. The franchise is virtually awarded in perpetuity. It can be re-awarded after only six years, without further submission to competition. That gives the lie to any suggestion that the Government favour competition. The arrangements whereunder a franchisee may apply at any time after six years to have the licence renewed are a mockery. All the fears expressed about the prospects of over-bidding for the initial licence are fully justified when one considers how much is at stake when acquiring the initial licence.
The Government cannot claim that the dangers are unreal. The experience in Australia is highly germane, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) explained, but it is not unique. In France the firm Bouygs recently purchased more than 50 per cent. of the major channel TF 1 for 3 billion francs, which has since been recouped by a ratings war to gain advertising revenue. Other French companies are feeling the draught. The Government are having to consider reintroducing regulations.
Further evidence of the Government's political purpose in seeking to oust those whom they distrust is to be found


in the provision that the Secretary of State should have the final say in the appointment of the Channel 4 directors. As Sir Richard Attenborough has said, what is at stake is not the stewardship of public money but the maintenance of independent, innovative broadcasting.
The Bill's proposals on cross-ownership and ownership by newspapers are disturbingly inadequate. They will allow a further erosion of competition, the entry of Rupert Murdoch into independent television and radio and a reduction in the number of television regions from the present 15 to eight. In the United States, under the 1955 Federal Communications Commission rules, ownership of radio plus newspapers and television in the same market is prevented. Under those rules, Mr. Murdoch has been forced to divest himself of two newspapers and a television station. We should follow that route.
The Government claim to be committed to the preservation of regional television. If that claim is to be made good, three major changes are required. First, licensees must maintain full regional production and transmission of facilities within the region. On that, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) was right. Secondly, ownership must be confined to one ITV licence. The Government's proposition that small companies are legitimate targets for large ones is simply not acceptable.
Thirdly, the Bill must make suitable provision for a network. As the chairman-elect of the commission, Mr. George Russell has said that no independent company produces more than 30 per cent. of the programmes that it shows that its ability to transmit high quality programmes depends upon the network. Furthermore, it is desirable to secure fair access to the network for the smaller companies and to prevent the larger franchise holders from reducing competition by exercising complete control over the internal tariffs.
The arrangements allowing for multiple bidding must be changed. They may favour—no doubt the Government hope that they will—the first-time entrant to broadcasting. They would make the maintenance of a network between now and the auction wholly untenable.
Regional broadcasting offers the opportunity to bring the cultural diversions of our regions into everyone's home. The Government, however, have shown their weak commitment to such diversity by their treatment of Scotland. There is no provision for a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish member of the ITC board—and there should be. There are provisions in the Bill to prevent the takeover of all the English regions, but there is no comparable provision for Scotland [Interruption.] The Whip on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) may have no interest in Scottish television. That does not surprise me in the least and that may account for the poor support for his party in Scotland. There are many people—

Mr. Mellor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Whip cannot speak for himself I feel compelled to defend him. The point that was being made is one to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) should address himself. He has fallen outside the 10-minute rule. It would be a courtesy to other hon. Members waiting to speak, especially as the Front-Bench

spokesmen are prepared to shorten their replies, if the hon. Gentleman would keep within the reasonable confines of 10 minutes.

Mr. Maclennan: If the Minister had done me the courtesy of coming in to listen to my speech, his remarks might carry some weight. As he absented himself for the greater part of my speech, I shall continue in my own time. I am wholly in order and I intend to take my time. The House will not allow minority parties to be put at a disadvantage in the debate in the way that the Minister would like. The Home Secretary took three quarters of an—

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am tempted not to interrupt this hysterical attack, but it would be right to remind the House that the Minister was outside the Chamber for an extremely brief moment. He has been in the Chamber for the rest of the debate.

Mr. Maclennan: Such interruptions merely take up the time of the House.
The most serious omission from the Bill for Scotland and those other parts of the country where the population is scattered over a wide area is the absence of provision to equalise transmission costs. That absence particularly threatens the future of the radio companies operating in Wales and Scotland which serve the more remote areas. The Bill is also silent about the transmission costs of television. The transmitter at Crystal Palace serves millions in London, but it takes eight transmitters and 68 relay lines to serve the northern half of Scotland. The Government have not promised that their plans to privatise the lines owned by British Telecom will not place intolerable burdens on companies in sparsely populated areas. The Bill makes no provision for Gaelic, but I welcome the step announced by the Secretary of State this afternoon. We shall look closely at the funding offered in support of it.
The Government have sought to remove the sting of the criticism that they are unconcerned about the quality of broadcasting by emphasising the importance of the so-called quality threshold in the bidding process. The only specific consumer protection provided by the Bill is defined in terms of taste and decency. The licensing authority, operating in the shadow of Lord Rees-Mogg's Broadcasting Standards Council—a wholly unnecessary quango—has a duty to codify the rules and to supervise their application.
There is no comparable obligation on the authority specifically to secure the at-risk services—children's programmes, social action programmes, programmes for the disabled and the ethnic minorities and, most notably, religious programmes. Perhaps the Government believe that all that should be left to the BBC. Perhaps those obligations are intended to compensate the BBC for the almost inevitable loss to cable and satellite broadcasters—should the Bill go through in its present form—of major sports events such as the cup final, Wimbledon and the grand national.
Those who have complained about the time taken to set out the points that the Social and Liberal Democrats wish to place before the House would do well to remember that this is the only intervention in the debate from a party which speaks for about a quarter of the electorate.
If there is intensive competition for ratings by Channel 3 and Channel 5, which are not to have any quality or


regional remit, the BBC will be faced with the nasty choice of either going down market or losing its audiences. Either way, the case for the retention of its licence fee will be undermined, which is no doubt what the Government intend.
When the Home Secretary concluded this afternoon, he said that fears about quality were voiced in this House when independent television was established in 1955, and his acolytes have echoed that thought. It is certainly true that fears were expressed, but it is also true that those criticisms were entirely justified. Their justification was made plain by the Pilkington report in 1962, the recommendations of which were acted upon in 1963 when the regulatory system—broadly, that under which our broadcasters operate today—was introduced. It was the Finance Act 1963, not the 1955 Act, which gave the television authorities specific powers over schedules and programme standards.
If the Bill is not amended in the light of our experience and that of other countries which have gone down the deregulatory road, it will deprive the British people of the enjoyment, entertainment, information and education that is at their fingertips today. Otherwise, as in 1963 so in 1993, a further Bill will be required to clean up the Government's mess.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith: I must declare that I am a non-executive director of London Weekend Television, and I do not have any shares in it.
I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I do not know anyone who works at the sharp end of television who subscribes to the gloomy view that he has expressed. In such circles, among those who are looking forward to the change, there is no question of the Government's action being motivated by political malice and all that rubbish. That may go down well with the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but it does not count for one iota with those who are involved in television. On the contrary, they believe that the Government are right to recognise the technological changes that are taking place.
The technology associated with cable and direct broadcasting by satellite was bound to have an impact on the present structure. If the hon. Gentleman is content with the present structure, good luck to him. The British people think that it is pretty good, and they are right. I do not claim for one moment that everything in the Bill is perfect. I shall mention one or two problems briefly, as I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to participate. They have waited all afternoon to do so and they sat here with considerable patience listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has also displayed such patience while sitting here all afternoon. He disappeared for a few moments while the hon. Gentleman was galloping through a few more paragraphs.
Those who are worried should accept one simple fact—change must take place. There is no way to avoid such change, and if we tried to do so we would be invaded by those who have direct broadcasting by satellite who are not answerable to this House or to any of our regulations. If that happened, British television would be at a severe competitive and qualitative disadvantage. We have to

change the structure. There is much in the Bill for regional television and there is a great deal to play for in the House and in Committee.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has already said that the Bill is not cast in tablets of stone. There are things that can and should be changed. Following the publication of the White Paper, I welcome the Bill, which is far-reaching and which offers an interesting framework upon which we can improve the quality of British television. I do not know exactly how it will all work out. I do not know anyone in British television who knows what the future will hold.
Those who predict doom and gloom remind me far too easily of those who were anxious when the initial Bill on commercial television was presented.
I always remember Lew Grade saying to me, "Why don't you go tell your friends in the BBC"—he associated me with the BBC because I worked there—"to lay off light entertainment, because they don't know the job? We fellows in commercial television know how to do it." We all know what happened. The BBC has often outstripped ITV in quality and popular appeal with some of its programmes in light entertainment, which appeal to what some describe as the lowest common denominator of the British people. The commercial companies, through Independent Television and some of their serious programmes and documentaries, have often outstripped the BBC in audience appeal, as well as appealing to the elite.
We are in open country. Should we embrace it? Those I know in television—

Mr. Chris Mullin: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I really must get on.
Those I know in television, knowing that something has to happen, have looked to the future because they know that it will be more competitive. They have got rid of the restrictive practices that bedevilled British television—and high time too. They also know the wide range of choice which can be achieved if more buttons are available on the set.
The range of choice in British radio and television is not good; it is extraordinarily bad. If I want to listen to a greater variety of music, I shall go to the States—San Francisco, New York, Chicago. If I want television serving a high-density audience—this country could serve a tremendous concentration of people—I would rely not on British television but on American television. In New York there is a far wider range of choice, which is not relegated to the ghetto at 11 pm, 12 pm or after 9.30 pm, but is shown at prime time.
Let us not have this false belief that British television leads the world and will continue to do so. It will not. The choice we have is so limited that people boast of programmes that Granada used to make 10 or 15 years ago. What has it made since? The time has come for a shake-up, and I am glad that the Government are taking this role.
The balance between obtaining quality and paying for the programmes is difficult to achieve. Some people would like to continue with the present arrangement. What is it? There is always some lord on the board who comes forward with a nice menu with no price tag. He would use his lobbying techniques on those on the IBA who decide to award the contracts. Hon. Members from both sides know


that, more than once, the proposal could not be afforded and the sums had not been properly calculated. Often, such people were not even asked to produce real figures. In the end, they did not do what they said, and nothing happened.
If we are to give people this great opportunity to make money—they do make money out of this, and if they work for the BBC they also have an interesting living—we are entitled to ask them to put a price tag on their proposals. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister must stick to the price tag proposal. But he has not got the balance right. I shall not give my reasons for thinking that, because many others have given the arguments, and no doubt many other hon. Friends of mine will do so later. I hope that he will stick to insisting that some money should be put down on deposit and some idea should be given of how much their proposals will cost. Otherwise, all sorts of fancy people will come forward with brilliant, beautiful ideas, knowing jolly well that they will not be able to deliver them.
The Economist has come forward with the interesting idea that companies should pay rent to the Government and show that they wish to spend so much money on certain programmes and have them costed. London Weekend Television and other companies have suggested that a requirement of the bidding process now advocated is that a quality hurdle should be linked to what they call a business credibility hurdle. By that they mean that the applicant would have to show signed options for the programmes in his schedules, including provisional contracts with facility companies—the independent companies.
All kinds of ideas are being kicked around; if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister would take some of them on board he could lay the ghost of the quality argument versus those trying to make a quick buck.

Mr. John McAllion: I doubt if there is a more powerful medium available to man at the end of the 20th century than television. Its power to exercise control and to effect change in society is absolutely immense. Advertisers are prepared to pay vast sums of money for just 30-second slots of television time because they know that with that time they can help to shape, influence and ultimately control consumer demand in capitalist countries like this one.
Only yesterday I read an article in the quality press claiming that the revolutions in eastern Europe were, to a remarkable degree, television revolutions and that television images—whether of western affluence or of mass demonstrations in support of political change—were critical in loosening the grip on power of regimes which, until only a short time ago, seemed impregnable to any kind of reform or change.
We know from our own experience of powerful television documentaries such as John Pilger's on Cambodia, that they make such impact on people that it is possible not only to change attitudes within Government, but even to change Government policy in our own country. When we think about the Bill, it is absolutely essential to remember that we are dealing with a subject of awesome political, social and economic importance. That is particularly true of Scotland. Within

the context of the United Kingdom, Scotland has had to learn to co-exist with its much larger and more powerful and dominating neighbour, England. That has already affected the choice available to viewers and listeners in Scotland.
Some of these effects are more important than others. Of less importance is the fact that we are subjected to the blatant bias of English commentators who, when commentating on football games involving the English national team, assume that everyone watching wants England to win. That assumption cannot be made about television audiences in Scotland.
Of much greater importance is the consequence of metropolitan bias in the national news bulletins. In Scotland we are essentially offered what the metropolis believes to be of national or international importance. When the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 passed through the House, it did so without surfacing in any national news bulletins. However, when legislation implementing the poll tax in England and Wales passed through the House, there were almost nightly reports of the poll tax debates in this Chamber. That shows the sort of bias that we in Scotland have to suffer because of the metropolitan nature of so-called national television in our country.
In Scotland we have learnt over the years that the best way forward is to try to ensure that television in Scotland comes increasingly under the control of Scottish-based companies which produce programmes in Scotland and transmit them from Scotland for Scotland. The key question about the Bill is whether it makes more likely progress towards that desirable goal. However, I believe that it makes it less likely, not more. There are a number of reasons for that.
A number of safeguards exists within the present proposals. For example, clause 14 places a statutory obligation on the ITC to construct the new Channel 3 on a regional basis. That is fine. The Minister of State who has responsibility for broadcasting policy in the Scottish Office recently made a statement during the Scottish Grand Committee debate on broadcasting in which he made it clear that he welcomed the prospect that, under the new proposals, Scotland would continue to enjoy the benefits which the present regional structure of three ITV companies provides. That is good.
Yesterday, in The Observer, Mr. George Russell, the chairman-designate of the new ITC, confirmed that it was the commission's intention to retain the broad pattern of the ITV map. That is all welcome, but is it sufficient? Does it guarantee a continued existence for the Grampian area television service, the Border area television service or the Scottish area television service? It does not in any way guarantee it.
There is an extraordinary contradiction in the Bill. In clause 14(6), the Government have found it necessary to include a safeguard that prevents the ITC from determining that the whole of England shall be one regional area, but it has not found it necessary to include a similar safeguard for Scotland. Given the relative sizes of England and Scotland and the number of regional companies in Scotland, I should have thought it far more necessary to include a safeguard for Scotland than for England. Yet clause 14(6) makes it posssible for the whole of Scotland to be one region. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that, somewhere down the line, the


Government do not rule out the merger of the existing three regional companies in Scotland into a single regional company—

Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend talked about the Border Television region, which covers areas on both sides of the border. Will my hon. Friend consider the position of a television area dominated by Strathclyde and the fact that people on the Scottish border would object to that? I am glad that my hon. Friend supports the existence of a television station spanning the English and Scottish sides of the border.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are not raising this as a fanciful idea or as a spectre. Mr. George Russell, the new chairman of the ITC, has made it clear that the ITC is not committed to the existing map of the ITV areas—it is committed to it merely in broad terms. Mr. Russell has not ruled out the possibility of fine tuning around the fringes—we can only hope that he does not mean the Celtic fringes—of the ITV regional map.
Mr. Russell went on in yesterday's article to say that the Government have allowed for the ITV companies to bid for any—or, if they wish, for all—of the other areas. Today the Home Secretary gave an assurance that no licensee would be allowed to bid for two contiguous areas, but his predecessor made it clear in an answer last May that the restrictions on ownership of Channel 3 areas were only an initial limit. So the Government do not rule out in the long term the possibility that Scotland might be left in the same position as Wales and Northern Ireland—areas which will have single regional channels to provide their services.
There are important lessons to be drawn from commercial radio in Scotland. In the beginning, there were four independent commercial radio stations in each of the four major Scottish cities—Radio Clyde in Glasgow, Radio Forth in Edinburgh, Radio Tay in Dundee, and Radio North Sound in Aberdeen. I understand that Radio Clyde has now taken over North Sound and I know that Radio Forth has already taken over Radio Tay. I read only recently in the Financial Times that Radio Clyde is now set to take over Radio Forth, too. So, of an original four independent stations, two now dominate the Scottish scene and ultimately there may be just one. If that can happen to radio in Scotland, I see nothing to suggest that it could not happen to television.
Nothing in the Bill rules out the possibility of the concentration of ownership and control of commercial television in Scotland—and not necessarily in the hands of someone from Scotland. An outsider might come in; nothing in the Bill prevents outsiders from bidding for franchises in the regions of this country. Nothing in the Bill will prevent one of those bidders from subsequently concentrating all the franchises in Scotland under one ownership and control. Nothing in the Bill will prevent the new licensees from dismantling existing production facilities in Scotland; nor will anything in the Bill require them to establish equivalent production facilities of their own.
The Government may argue that these are the consequences of opening up the market in television and that ultimately the viewer will benefit from them, but few Opposition Members share their complacency. We believe that the consequences of the changes outlined in the Bill will be that money will be everything—enough money to

outbid rivals for a franchise, then enough money earned from the franchise to pay back the initial outlay for winning it. All this will mean choosing programmes with high viewing figures—programmes that are capable of producing high revenues. That means going for the cheaper option of buying in programmes from the network and not investing in locally and regionally produced television of high quality. In the end, this will mean undermining the financial basis of smaller regional companies such as Grampian and Border.
The Home Secretary said that the Bill will not mark the demise of public service broadcasting in this country, and that may or may not be true. However, it certainly marks the demise of independent, locally produced commercial television in areas such as Scotland. For that and many other reasons, I shall vote against the Bill tonight and hope to amend it later.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will forgive me if I do not follow his path, although it is clearly a matter of great concern to him and his constituents.
I speak as chairman of the all-party cable and satellite TV committee, which I joined four years ago because we have in my constituency the oldest, and one of the best, of the cable companies operating in this country. Swindon Cable was established in 1984, and it provides an excellent service for a growing number of my constituents. I want to speak mostly about part II of the Bill, which refers to cable broadcasting.
Before doing so, I should comment on quality and diversity, themes which have concerned a large number of hon. Members on both sides. One of the effects of the increased diversity of available television is dear to my heart—the fact that later this winter we shall be able to watch live, ball-by-ball coverage of the English cricket games against the West Indies on Sky Television. That may not appeal to all hon. Members but it commends itself to those of us who regard cricket as one of the finest flowerings of the English character—and, to a lesser extent, of the Welsh and Scottish characters. I hope that many in this House and elsewhere are pleased at this development. Let us be prepared to accept that we have already derived great benefit from what has happened.
Cable television is predicted to reach half the population by 1995, but clause 70 constitutes a snag in its steady progress. Clause 70 proposes a percentage levy on qualifying revenue of cable companies set up and licensed by the ITC. If this levy is pitched too high, it may discourage investment in the spread of cable; indeed, it may put off future investors altogether. Do the Government want to encourage such investment? We have already heard about the inevitable growth in the provision of television in this country, but that growth could be stultified, and so I seek an assurance that that is not the Government's intention.
Will my hon. and learned Friend also consider the effects of his proposals on cross-ownership, and the prospect of foreign ownership of United Kingdom television companies? There is a real chance that the 20 per cent. maximum share ownership will mean that Yorkshire Television, for example, could become an Italian company, or that Grampian could become a West German company. I am not being xenophobic when I say that this


will not be in the interests of television watchers in parts of the country that are affected. Is my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State prepared to look again at his proposals, to ensure that such a situation will not arise?

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to deal with that would be to augment and reinforce the quality criteria?

Mr. Coombs: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will address himself to that during this debate or in Committee. Can he also say whether he has ruled out retrospection in terms of the way in which he proposes to treat non-DBS companies? What role does he see as suitable for the Monopolies and Mergers Commisson in dealing with questions that arise in the course of the development of the legislative framework proposed by the Bill?
In the course of his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) mentioned religious broadcasting. He also mentioned my constituency, because one of the religious channels in this country is available for my constituents who are viewers of Swindon Cable. Schedule 2 needs to be rethought. There is a danger that, if we allow the Bill to go forward as drafted, religious broadcasting will be severely curtailed. I do not think that the House wishes that to happen; nor do I think that it is the wish of many people in Britain. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to look carefully at what is proposed in the Bill.
Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House when the transitional arrangements for cable companies will be announced and whether existing cable systems will continue to be required to carry the four existing terrestrial television channels? That matter is causing a great deal of concern to cable companies.
Will my hon. and learned Friend justify to the House the apparent disparity in the level of fines that can be imposed on television companies under the Bill? A maximum fine of £50,000 is proposed for the non-DBS companies, such as Sky Television, whereas Channels 3 and 5 and DBS companies would be required to pay in the first instance 3 per cent. of revenue and in the case of subsequent offences 5 per cent. That could amount to many millions of pounds, and there is a case in justice for it being looked at again. I am extremely happy to support the general framework of the Bill. There is no doubt that the changes in technology that have been developing over the past few decades make it inevitable that we should have a fresh look at the whole question of broadcasting. That makes this Bill inevitable, and I wish it well.

Mr. Jim Sillars: The factor that has come through to me in this fascinating debate is the elitist nature of the forum. We are all political activists and that tends to make us a small minority in society. I was a bit disturbed to find proof of that elitism in the amount of exaggeration by hon. Members. They have exaggerated the role of television in human communications, especially at a higher intellectual level. No one has said that, as well as having virtues, television in terms of communication has important defects. For example, it is far too visual. The pictures presented, even in current affairs programmes of

so-called high quality, are far too often more important than the content. We have had good examples of that in the coverage of United States presidential elections, where television has been open to considerable manipulation by the participants.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sillars: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, so he need not bother to try to intervene.
We have had the problem of perhaps one of the most vacuous presidents of the United States coming across on television to the American electorate as pretty reasonable. Television is like other methods of communication in that it has virtues and defects. It seeks to serve us in terms of entertainment, information, education and stimulation of the intellectual process. When we talk about quality we are really talking about getting the right balance between television's propensity to entertain and our perceived need for it to inform, educate and stimulate intellectually.
I should like to make two points in the time available to me and I shall be brief to allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate. The points relate to part II and especially to the proposed Channel 3. I and my hon. Friends oppose in principle the concept of blind auction licences, even though the Bill modifies them by calling for some requirement of a quality test.
Perhaps one of the most effective attacks upon Rupert Murdoch's McTaggart lecture appeared, paradoxically, in The Times of 30 August in an article by Brian Appleyard. He gave the real answer to Rupert Murdoch when he said:
The BBC and ITA were established on the basis that the market was morally and socially inadequate".
That is why we require tests for quality, and we cannot simply open up television or any other system of broadcasting to the marketplace.
Like other hon. Members, in recent weeks I have heard the rumours and read press speculation about the Government conceding on the question of quality tests. I had hoped that we were heading for a two-stage test and that applicants for a licence would submit programming propositions for a test of quality. Only after they passed that programming test would they proceed to the blind auction.
Leaving aside the argument about whether the money should go to the Treasury or into television for better programming, if there were a two-stage test, more hon. Members would be much happier. However, that is not the case. The cash bid and the so-called quality test are combined in clause 15 and the legislative language in clauses 16 and 17 gives additional weight to the cash bid factor over the quality factor. Clause 17(2) is the giveaway, because if says that, if two bids are equal in terms of cash, the licence is put back out for another cash bid. If quality really mattered, the bids would be tested on the quality of the programming. It is almost inconceivable that two organisations putting forward exactly the same cash bids would be absolutely equal in every respect in terms of programming.
I have heard the Government say that the quality test will be the Becher's brook. Will it be the first-time round Becher's brook or the second-time round one? As everyone who has watched the Grand National knows, on the second-time round, there are big holes in the fence because horses have fallen through it the first time. It is possible to have a test, but one full of loopholes.
My second point concerns the Bill's failure to give statutory recognition to the regional make-up in Scotland. Here I am at one with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), although I am not at one with him about what happens to the England football team. I may be in a minority in Scotland, but I supported England in the World cup in 1966 and I was pleased when it won. I cannot guarantee that I will watch every ball rolled in the cricket in the West Indies because I find cricket boring, but I am a great admirer of the skills and structures of English football.
As I said, the Bill fails to give statutory recognition to regional make-up in Scotland, and fails to ensure that a regional structure exists, not simply through publishers' contract methods but through companies with a full regional facility base, anchored in their community. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, clause 14 recognises that England is not a region. The point that we are making about Scotland, and this goes well outwith the ranks of the Scottish National party, is that a nation has regions in its make-up and it is important that those regions are recognised, and manifested, in a broadcasting system.
The history of independent television in Scotland shows that there is a great deal of worth in having more than one company operating within the nation. We are seeking Government recognition of the regional variations and of the need to have that reflected in statute.
I urge on the Government the need to guarantee in the Bill regional and national access to the network because there are considerable jobs implications in that. Scottish Television is a good example of the benefits of greater access to the network. STV has increased the amount devoted to programmes for network from £3 million to £15 million in the past three years. This has allowed 300 well-paid, highly skilled jobs to be retained in Scotland that might otherwise have been lost. Access is extremely important.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most positive aspects of S4C in Wales is not only that it supports the Welsh language as the minority language of half a million of our people, but that jobs in television provide an extended base from which we can take advantage of opportunities to develop the cultural industry?

Mr. Sillars: Yes, and we must understand that we are moving away from the old industrial revolution and metal-bashing and into a different era of human activity, in which the intellectual processes are extremely important, as is one's ability, within a region, nation or larger grouping, to add value to the intellectual processes and bring enormous economic benefits to the people so engaged. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board.
My hon. Friends and I will vote against the Bill because there is a fundamental difference in philosophy as to where the market should operate. We wish to put on far more restraints than the Government do.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this most important Bill. Sadly, I have no financial interests to declare. I am not a consultant to anybody and I have never been an employee of any broadcasting company, but I was a member of the

BBC general advisory council, I gave evidence to the Peacock committee and I must have appeared on virtually every television or radio programme with any claim to serious content, and more than a few without. I support the Bill, and I should very much like to be a member of the Committee examining it.
The framework provided by the existing legislation is out of date, and reform is absolutely unavoidable. This reform seeks to widen choice, not restrict it. It will regulate with a light hand and not with endless bureaucracy, although in one or two places the heavy hand of excess bureaucracy is there.
I put it to Ministers that, as a Conservative, deregulating Government, we should start from the proposition that we should interfere as little as possible. I say that with some passion, having listened to speeches from the Opposition Benches, particularly from members and erstwhile members of the Labour party, say that Government should control the media. I think that we should always be wary of Governments who want to regulate the media, whether from the highest motives or not. It is always dangerous for politicians to start telling the press what they can or cannot do.
Let there be no mistake—the broadcast media are moving away from the narrow, tight, licensed arrangements of 30 or 40 years ago to something much closer to the print media in which there is a much wider variety and a bigger range of choice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), when he was Home Secretary, likened it to a book shop in which there is a much wider range of choice. The simile probably goes too far, but there is no doubt that the kind of controls that were appropriate in the 1950s and 1960s are no longer appropriate.
It is my view, indeed, that we are bending over backwards a little too far to prevent monopoly ownership. The Bill requires all broadcasters to keep quiet about their own opinions. It provides that licence holders must not express their views on matters which are in current political or industrial dispute. I recognise that that provision has been placed in the Bill in the interest of balance, but why should licence holders not express their views? Is that not a recipe for greater blandness and not greater choice?
In the print medium, there is no such requirement. As a result, we have The Sun, which the Opposition hate, and the Daily Mirror, which Conservative Members hate. We have The Daily Telegraph, which turned me into a Tory many years ago, and The Guardian, which had exactly the same effect. Because we do not make such rules in the print medium, we have far greater diversity, and the result is a much livelier pattern of publishing. We are in danger of saying that we shall have many more television channels, but they will all produce the same bland material, the same opinionless stuff, and that is not real choice at all.
Then there is the argument about quality. I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with great care. He really talked a load of poppycock. We in this place should be careful about setting ourselves up as standard setters for the rest of the nation. We watch hardly any television at all, and when we do, the odds are that we are watching only ourselves. There are only three rooms in the House for watching—BBC 1, BBC2 and ITV. There are no facilities for watching Channel 4 and none for cable television, satellite television or regional stations—radio or television. For most of the time we do not have the foggiest idea what our


constituents are watching anyhow. We should be extremely wary, therefore, as we sit on these green Benches, of setting ourselves up as people who watch a lot of television when we do not, and telling those people who watch a lot of television what they should be watching. It is a very dangerous business.
Quality is like sovereignty—it means a lot, but it means different things to different people. There are those—the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is one—who talk of the need to maintain quality. I sometimes think that what such people mean is the right to maintain the quality of the programmes that they like, preferably with public money.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) talked about Radio 3, and I appreciate that he was honest in his approach. When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that maximising quality and maximising revenue were mutually exclusive, he was talking rubbish. I put it to him—he did not really answer the question—that soap operas, murder mysteries and quiz shows which we all like to see, do attract huge audiences and huge export income and win many prizes. About 11 million people watched the Ruth Rendell mystery last night, and about the same number watch ITN on a Saturday night, as I know to my cost. We should be aware of that. There is no conflict between what is good and what is popular.
We should also reject the point that has been made about "major events". There is some question-begging about what constitutes a major event. Those of us who are interested in racing might regard the Cheltenham gold cup and the Arc de Triomphe as choicer events than the grand national. The question of whose choice is a major event, the circumstances of, and arguments about opening all events to the highest bidder demonstrates to me that the Opposition do not understand how anybody ever makes money or anything, particularly in the mass media. That is not done by restricting the audience and making it as small as possible. It is done by making the audience as big as possible, especially if the finance is coming from advertising. The logic of the Opposition's argument for the wider availability for major events is that such events should all be shown on all channels simultaneously. That is such a preposterous notion that it demonstrates the paucity of their argument.
The Opposition's view that there is a conflict between quality and finance also suggests that we should look only to public service broadcasting for quality. That is nonsense. The most commercial organisation operating in the broadcasting medium is the BBC. If we are looking for who pays huge salaries to personalities on television, we should not look to Sky Television: we should look to the Wogan show and one or two others we could think of. If we are looking at who is bidding up the price and the costs of sports programmes, we should look to the BBC. It does a cracking good job, but it is doing it with our money. We should be wary of simply assuming that that is necessarily the way to do it in future.
BBC Enterprises Limited is the world's largest exporter of television programmes, with a turnover of more than £150 million last year. Like others of my hon. Friends, I have sat in hotel rooms in San Francisco and turned on the public service broadcasting channel, paid for by subscription, and watched "To the Manor Born", "Yes,

Prime Minister" and the BBC wildlife programmes. They earn a mint overseas, and they were all made with our licence fee money in this country.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Lady concede the obvious fact that the programmes that she is praising, and which are praised in America, are often the products of regulated broadcasting?

Mrs. Currie: On the contrary: the kind of programmes I am talking about are the product of mass marketing media. They are designed to attract millions of people—[Interruption.] They, like the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I intend to pay the hon. Gentleman a compliment, if he will only shut up long enough to listen to me.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Lady does not understand.

Mrs. Currie: Programmes like "Yes, Prime Minister" are designed in a commercial world by mass media for a mass audience of people with the taste and intelligence of the hon. Gentleman. There are millions like him. It does not need to be done with taxpayers' money.
I have one suggestion to make. Much of the argument about the sale of franchises arises because the money is to go to the Treasury. I suggest that a proportion of that money, which goes to the Treasury from the highest bidder —and I think it should be from the highest bidder—should be allocated to what we currently call public service broadcasting. We already give money to schools broadcasting and Open university broadcasting—indeed, we have just allocated a chunk of money to Gaelic broadcasting—and it is all tremendously popular. If we did a little more of that, the Opposition would not be screaming at us for choosing the highest bidder—they would be urging us to choose the highest bidder and would then be arguing about where the money should go to. Then there could be some public service broadcasting on all the channels, the importance of the licence fee to the BBC would be reduced, and people would be more interested in and favourable to the system.
The proposed changes are in good Tory tradition. We introduced ITV in the 1950s, independent local radio in the 1970s and channel 4 in the 1980s. Armageddon was threatened each time, but it did not happen. I support the Bill.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Broadcasting is the most influential medium of mass communication; no more effective means of communication has been devised. Even before the Bill was published, members of the Home Affairs Select Committee and others recognised the great changes in the technology of broadcasting and its management.
It is a great pity that the Bill, which was the Government's great opportunity to introduce landmark legislation, does not put excellence and quality at the top of the agenda. There is no doubt that the auctioning of the franchises to the highest bidders will affect quality. At the heart of the Bill is not a commitment to excellence or quality, but a desire for money.
We do not need a crystal ball to see what the future holds for broadcasting; we need only look at what has happened in America since deregulation. I and other members of the Select Committee were transported, on


taxpayers' money, to America to watch television. We saw the experience of programme makers. The 14 channels that I sampled on New York television all consisted of game shows and advertisements. We looked forward to returning to Britain to watch "The Sooty Show" and other programmes made here.
I oppose the suggestion that companies should be able to bid for more than one franchise at a time. I believe that that will be a recipe for chaos and will destroy the network of independent television companies at a time when there needs to be stability. I do not accept the proposals and the schedule concerning cross-ownership. It is sufficient for a legal person to own one franchise, but he should not be allowed to own any other franchises in the network or any newspapers.
I welcome the proposals for the establishment of Channel 5 but regret that it will be received by only 70 per cent. of the country. I do not accept the basis on which the channel is to be scheduled. It would be more appropriate to provide for mega-regions in the franchise or to allow the affiliation of local television stations on a citywide basis to a national channel. I disagree with the proposals that will allow the channel to be sold off to the highest bidder. If the Minister is looking for a home outside London for Channel 5, there is no better place than the quiet midlands city of Leicester, which lies modestly in the heart of England.
I regret that there has not been greater emphasis on regional broadcasting. The current franchise areas are too big. The east midlands—Leicester, Nottingham and Derby in particular—lose out to competition from the west midlands. Although I accept that people in Leicester and the east midlands identify with midland personalities and issues, when awarding the franchise it will be necessary to be more certain that the local nature of regional broadcasting is reviewed.
I accept that there was a need to create a separate radio authority. However, I do not believe that it is right for the franchises to go to the highest bidder. I commend the proposals of the Independent Broadcasting Authority in its recent granting of 23 commercial stations. I visited one of those commercial stations—Sunrise Radio which covers the whole of west London,—and I consider that the targeting of the audience had been extremely important.
I welcome what the Minister said about access to television for deaf people. There are 4 million deaf viewers and I accept the need to increase subtitling and sign language. The Minister should make it clear what he means by "greater access" to broadcasting. A specific percentage should be mentioned above the 10 per cent.
I regret that nothing in the Bill will help those who will not be able to afford the benefits of the technological changes that have occurred. I am thinking particularly of the pensioners in my constituency. I had hoped that there would have been a clause in the Bill—I accept that it is not necessarily to do with the BBC—to exempt pensioners from the payment of television licences. With the arrival of cable, pensioners in Leicester will have to pay roughly £10 a month to obtain the benefit of cable television. In addition to the television licence, they will have to pay an additional £120 a year. For many pensioners, television and radio are their only forms of entertainment. If we are serious about extending the choice available to all sections of our community, we should ensure that pensioners have greater access.
No one denies the Government's desire to open up the airways to improve broadcasting. We support that, but we do not support the proposals before the House, which will put the interests of the Treasury, advertisers and the television companies above those of the listeners and the viewers who know exactly what they want from good television and radio. The Bill is guaranteed a stormy passage. With the threats of a rebellion by Conservative Members, there is a danger of it becoming a soap opera in its own right, with the Minister of State cast as Jason Donovan and the Prime Minister as the Finchley version of Mrs. Mangle.
The Government say, "Never mind the quality, feel the bank balance." I say that the values of a nation can be judged by the quality of its broadcasting. Let us give our people the best, and create the climate and conditions that will allow broadcasting talents in our country to flourish.

Mr. David Shaw: I begin by declaring an interest as a director of a local independent radio station. I welcome the Bill because it will provide more choice in radio and television, and more choice will always be good news.
This country's commercial radio industry was slow to develop because of restrictions and unrealistic demands by an IBA backed by a Government system which did not encourage the development of commercial radio. I do not blame the IBA for the difficulties and restrictions under which it was compelled to work, in the form of the legislation that founded commercial radio. The IBA also achieved many good things, and it should be congratulated on the quality that it introduced into commercial television and radio.
Commercial radio had a difficult time establishing itself in this country because the services that the public wanted proved to be very different from the proposals contained in the original franchise applications. As a consequence, many applications promised a lot but had to be amended when the radio stations began broadcasting and needed to meet the needs of the market. Today, people enjoy listening to commercial radio, and the number of hours that it broadcasts has increased steadily. That change has come about through the passage of time and by people in the marketplace correcting the faults of the original concepts.
The new light touch Radio Authority will be good news for radio and should enable the expansion that the Bill foretells. Over the past few years, listening hours have climbed steadily, and that will continue as new stations go on the air. In the years from 1974 to 1979, under a Labour Government, commercial radio had a difficult time. It was not encouraged to expand, and the system established by a Conservative Government in 1973 was capable of being stifled. However, commercial radio has expanded considerably in recent years and now provides a much better service.
I turn to the problems that television may face as it expands under the Bill's proposals. The danger is that the number of violent and sexually explicit programmes could increase unless there is proper control. A proper Broadcasting Standards Council will be necessary to achieve that, and to ensure that the right sort of people end up in control of our television stations. It would be a major


mistake if the standards that we see in newspaper journalism today are mirrored by the television companies of the future.
More and more newspaper journalists are contemplating joining the new TV stations. Already, we have seen the fabrication of news programmes on existing TV stations. Will the Bill be able to handle that type of situation? Does the journalist who organised the Jeffrey Archer frame-up, for example, and who is currently a director of a television station, represent the type of journalism that the Government will allow on television in future? Should someone found to be a liar in open court or to have committed perjury be a director of a TV station broadcasting to children and others? Should someone who has twice been guilty of contempt of court or who has been involved in tax evasion through Netherlands Antilles and Cayman Islands companies be permitted to become involved in providing television services in this country?
Such problems can easily arise in the case of satellite television broadcasting, because in that instance the fiscal control and management of revenues is impossible to achieve. When people direct revenue through Netherlands Antilles and Cayman Islands companies, the Government, through the Home Office and the Treasury, must consider legislation to ensure that the Finance Bill covers that.
I hope that the Government will realise that maintaining television standards also means maintaining the standards of the directors of television companies. High standards are required.
In America, Rupert Murdoch's station, Fox Television, had a consumer revolt. Violence in their programmes was so bad that people got together and boycotted the advertisers' products in the supermarkets. It was an extremely effective revolt because the advertisers contacted the television station and said, "We do not want our products boycotted. We will not advertise on your station unless you stop violent programmes." Ultimately, violent programmes were stopped.
Perhaps viewers in Britain who are not satisfield with the standards of new television broadcasters—for example, Sky—will have to envisage boycotts of the advertisers' products. It is effective. If we find that the Broadcasting Standards Council has become a toothless wonder like the Press Council, and that it is not effective, we must introduce powers for fines through the right legislation.
Advertising revenue pays for programmes and supports the stations. Therefore, that revenue is the best thing to withdraw, as it will ensure that the providers of programmes stand up and say, "We must have better quality programmes". If they do not provide better quality programmes, legislation will ensure that their revenue is withdrawn. Withdrawal of advertising revenue is the only effective sanction on the provision of bad programmes.
We want high-quality television programmes produced by the right people—people who do not fabricate news programmes. We do not want some of the present standards of newspaper journalism in television programmes. The best way to ensure that programme standards are maintained is to ensure that there are lavish penalties on providers of television programmes that do not reach the right quality and standards.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Home Secretary for what he was able to say at the beginning of the debate about the provision of extra subtitles for people whose hearing is impaired. That is a great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who has led a campaign with support from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I was very pleased that the Minister was able to spell out that the Bill is a first year target, and that it is expected that it will be built on year by year. Naturally, we want the period of progress to be spelt out, properly to enfranchise those people whose hearing is impaired and to give them more access to television.
I also thank the Home Secretary for what he said about Gaelic broadcasting, which is not just of interest in Scotland. We want to ensure that the body will be generally representative of the Gaelic community, and that it will be properly independent when it makes decisions on commissioning and scheduling. I also welcome the extra-terrestrial and satellite channels that new technology has made possible, but, unlike the Government, the Opposition are not mesmerised by the prospect. We want to try to ensure that it will be used to widen real choice and diversity, to protect and promote quality and to stretch interest.
There has rightly been praise for much of our television system. Across and between four channels, it has achieved a programme mix, variety, range and quality which has two essential features. First, it enables us to talk to each other, to think aloud and to be heard, to be tempted and teased into new interests, whether about the environment and nature or about snooker and darts, and to be entertained and reminded of our distinctive culture and —yes—our Britishness. Secondly, it has, by and large, kept a balance between the broad and varied interests of viewers and the demands of advertisers. All this has been achieved on the basis of sensible regulation. It was not delivered by the naked market forces that the Bill would unleash and which have so damaged television elsewhere in Europe.
Regulation was recognition of television's special nature and powerful influence in the shaping of minds and opinions. We should also remember that the commercial network grew and developed beside standards set by the BBC. Most important of all, at peak viewing hours it was required to screen a mix of programmes in specified areas —news and current affairs to inform and educate, and drama, arts, children's religious programmes to entertain and reflect our cultural beliefs and values. True, too many voices and views remained unheard or not heard enough, especially among disadvantaged groups and our ethnic communities. True, the voices and cultures of our nations and regions are inadequately heard on the network. True, too, under the present Government there has been too much Government interference with the broadcasters.
Let us consider the following:
Any community must have some settled purpose",
wrote Mr. Robin Harris, a new policy adviser to the Prime Minister in a remarkable post dated job application published in the Evening Standard on 11 December. It seems that his job is to cloak the iron lady in a velvet dress


while she deals with the problems of society and community, the existence of which she earlier denied. With a whiff of perestroika, Mr. Harris added:
I believe it possible in general terms to state the kind of life people should lead"—
wait for it—
and which the state should encourage and help them to lead.
Not social engineering—perish the thought—but wise words in regard to the Bill and what it will allow us to watch on our screens. He continued, perhaps with children's programmes in mind:
should not the state publicly and systematically discriminate positively in favour of families?
To underscore the point, he added:
Education is above all the way in which one generation introduces the next into their common culture.
He then singled out religion as most important, and described it as
the single most important continuing influence on society.
Mr. Harris has clearly not read the Bill in which his employer, the Prime Minister, had such a large hand. It rejects the idea of any settled purpose and relieves commercial television of any obligation, in or out of peak hours, to carry programmes about current affairs which help to shape our society, or to carry children's programmes or religious programmes. It abandons any notion that commercial television has a role in offering a guide to the kind of life which Mr. Harris says that
the state should encourage and help".
Far be it from me to cause any dissension between a No. 10 policy adviser and the Prime Minister, especially as the two senior Home Office Ministers here owe their present jobs to such a dispute, but instead of the approach advocated by Mr. Harris, the Government propose that commercial television should be advertiser-pushed rather than viewer-led. That is what the preposterous system of blind auctioning will mean.
As one experienced television producer told me,
There is more to making a programme than simply filling screen hours.
Those who make programmes decide when to show them and those who watch them are entitled to ask, "What did that add to my quality of life? Did it make me laugh or cry? Did it tell me something that I did not know? Did it excite or stimulate me? Did it entertain or astonish me, or was it a mixture of all or some of those?" If a programme—any programme—cannot meet such a quality test, we might as well as watch a moving roll of wallpaper.
Let us be clear that the argument is not about snobbery or elitism. Research shows that, despite the groups into which advertisers divide us according to how much we have to spend, there is very little difference between what we watch on any evening. Readers of The Guardian or The Independent are just as likely to watch a games show or a soap as readers of the Daily Mirror or the Daily Mail are to watch a factual programme.
Under the Bill, it is certain that Christmas television 1989 will be better than Christmas television 1993, which will be poorer, less varied and more of the money-making same than now. As advertisers demand the largest audiences for their particular products, quality will be pushed down and real choice and variety in peak hours will be restricted. That is not guesswork—it is the inevitable consequence of the idea that what we watch on our television screens will be decided by a blind auction among those with access to the largest amount of cash and, as has been said several times in the debate, extra cash spent off screen will mean less cash on screen. Television is to be

sold in the same way as second-hand cars or unwanted household items. Buyers of such articles make a quick quality check before they bid, often with the same disappointing results as the Bill will ensure.
We know from France, Italy and West Germany what deregulation has meant—not what it might mean, but what has actually happened since deregulation. It has lessened real choice for viewers and served up more of the same with fewer factual programmes and more soaps usually foreign—and game shows. In France there is a move to restore some regulation due to the poorer quality television.
The Government say, "It will not happen here because we are different—we have the so-called quality threshold." But the quality assurances in the Bill are worthless. For example, the Government say nothing about what the IBA calls "streams" of programmes to be shown in peak hours. They are totaly silent on the matter of networking, on which the federal ITV system is built. Networking—how much and when it will be available to smaller stations—is essential, as it will give them a bite at higher audiences and often more costly programmes.

Mr. Gale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the independent television companies are working on a policy of networking by consent which is to be put to the Minister later?

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming my point. The Bill contains nothing about networking. No one can make a sensible bid for a franchise without knowing what networking there will be. The proportion of factual and entertainment-based programmes on the new Channel 3 and Channel 5 is critical to make a reality of choice in peak and non-peak viewing hours.
Now on the ITV stations, about one third of the screen time is devoted to factual programmes, inviting viewers to see and better understand what is going on around us. An impressive 84 of every 100 people rely on television as their main source of information about the developing world and the environment. In part, those programmes are made because the present rules say that they must be. Without those obligations, there will be fewer of them because they are expensive to make and they will probably not get as much peak-time showing when they are pushed down or off the schedules.
An important point is illustrated by the fact that Third-world and environmental programmes shown at peak hours on ITV and BBC have an average audience of 4 million to 5 million. When they are shown off peak, they have an audience of between 1 million and 1·5 million. When they are shown at peak time on Channel 4, the audience is about 1 million to 1·5 million—about the same as the off-peak audience for BBC1 and ITV. The new Independent Television Commission needs powers to influence programme range and diversity during peak-hour viewing if the Government are to fulfil their stated ambition to protect choice and variety. Otherwise, as we have seen in Europe, advertisers will try to grab those slots and design programmes to attract more viewers or the viewers whom they think they need to buy their products.
Audiences are more loyal to commercial radio than to television. It is essential that commercial radio is able to continue and to expand social action broadcasting and citizen broadcasting, which offer help to those who need it


and encourage others to give it, and to promote speech-based programmes. Radio has an important educational role to play which is of value to people from childhood to old age.
In Committee, we shall try to give the Independent Television Commission those and other extra powers, and to enable the new Channel 5 to be set up in the north and to be based on a regional mix of networking and home-made regional programmes.
So much of the future of what will be on our screens is left open in the Bill, which is perhaps why the Minister of State has said that he will listen and respond. He can do so tonight by joining us in giving the Committee that will consider the Bill the power to hear evidence before decisions are taken which will last into the next century.
Instead of building and developing our broadcasting best—especially in the face of new competition from satellite, which will take years to become of more than marginal viewing and will not be available to all—the Government want to demolish the foundations of much of the broadcasting system. They put cash ahead of quality and they invite the promotion of the trivial as they treat viewers and listeners as no more than parcels of people to be sold to advertisers. That insults the range of their tastes and their intelligence.
Under the Bill, viewers and television stations are for sale to the highest bidder—choice, diversity and variety can go hang. The viewers and listeners should be in the driving seat, but the Government want the advertisers to reign. That is why we shall oppose the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of many hon. Members, I am disappointed that a number of hon. Members had to sit through the debate without being able to participate in it. Despite the efforts of Front-Bench spokesmen to shorten wind-up speeches, I am sorry that that happened because it is a deeply frustrating experience. I single out one hon. Member who I suspect may have been mildly critical of the Bill, but I am particularly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Apart from a few minutes, I sat through the debate and regret that I will be unable to deal with all the points made. I shall try to deal with as many as I can.
It is appropriate to recollect the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). He began by saying—[Interruption.] Ah, here he comes, making an entrance like a real trouper. He said that it was a matter for congratulation that the Government have introduced such a comprehensive Bill.
Before I deal with the detail—a lot of which, I acknowledge, is very important and which will give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and his team and myself a great deal to talk about in Committee—it is right that we should recognise that this is a truly comprehensive Bill. It represents a great leap forward for British broadcasting. It contains many issues on which we all agree. No one has thought to challenge the desirability of a major expansion of radio, with three new

national independent radio channels and a host of local radio channels to cater for the wide range of tastes that we know exists out there.
Already, the IBA has been able to grant 23 additional radio licences under its existing powers, for which it received over 500 expressions of interest. The announcement made just a day or two ago that another licence in London had been awarded showed the range of groups applying. For instance, no fewer than eight groups wanted to run a classical radio station in London. In fact, the winner was an "easy listening" franchise, whatever that may mean. The fact that the IBA had to discriminate between one lot of music and another is a sign of how invidious is the task of picking between one group and another.
These matters of quality do not speak for themselves. I have have heard some hon. Members refer to "quality" as though it were a "speak your weight" machine that would automatically register a precise quality rating so that one could make relative quality judgments between different bids. Beyond a certain point, it is difficult. I should not have chosen to have to make a distinction between any of those classical musical applications or to put all of them on one side and choose "easy listening" instead.
The other point on which we all agree is that the framework of public service broadcasting should remain around the BBC, as it does, and that the Bill should take the opportunity to make Channel 4 even more secure in its remit. To those who make unduly pessimistic assertions about the future of television, even if—it is a very big "if—one accepts the pessimism about Channel 3, which of course I do not, it must be relevant to our consideration of the future of British broadcasting that three of the four main terrestrial channels remain exactly as they always did—

Mr. Grocott: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been allowed only 15 minutes to reply. That being so, I think that I should be allowed to answer the debate.
It is interesting that only one point can be challenged about the way in which we have dealt with Channel 4, and with respect to those who hold those views, their point seems a little wide of the mark. At the moment Channel 4 is entirely the creature of the IBA. The authority broadcasts its programmes, approves its schedules and decides its income. Under the new arrangements, for the first time Channel 4 will broadcast its own programmes, decide its own schedules and, to the extent that its advertising sales are successful, fix the level of its income. With the greatest respect to those who hold contrary views, I believe that for the Government to have the right to approve nominations put forward by the ITC is not excessive, having regard to the prime desire and requirement of Channel 4 not to be privatised, but to remain as a public corporation, which it will.
Another thing with which hon. Members agree is the enhancement that we have given to Gaelic broadcasting and to the maintenance of S4C, about which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke. I had a meeting with the managing director of S4C the other day and he is well satisfied with the remit that he has been given.
Interestingly, there has been no challenge to the fact that for the first time we shall regulate what appears on satellite television. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested that the Bill was about deregulation. With the greatest respect, we could not have produced a Bill with 167 clauses and 12 schedules if it had been about deregulation. It may be about modifying the manner in which we regulate but, for example, it extends regulation for the first time, to non-DBS low-powered satellite channels which at present are outside any direct United Kingdom regulatory control.
The regulation in the Bill goes beyond matters of taste and decency. Channels will be required not to editorialise on political or controversial matters, to preserve due impartiality in dealing with such matters, to present news accurately and impartially and to control advertisements. That is far from a move towards deregulation. We assume that we have the right to stop innovations. We do not. They will happen anyway and it is sensible to set them within a framework of regulation. That is what the Bill does.
I understand that there is a good deal of anxiety about our proposals for Channel 3. Having established that, there is a great deal in the Bill on which hon. Members of whatever party affiliation agree. That is why I regret that there will be a Division on the Bill tonight. I acknowledge that serious issues will need to be addressed in dealing with Channel 3 franchises.
I was sad that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—who is pointing towards me but not listening—said complacently, "If it ain't broke, don't mend it." I should have thought that we were all agreed on one matter in this debate, wherever else we may part company. There is precious little about which to be complacent when we consider the performance of Channel 3. That is no fault of the IBA. We have set the statutory framework.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Mellor: No, I shall not give way. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
Many of the people who apply for franchises will have to consider seriously the performance of Channel 3. If it is to be a worthwhile business to be in, they will have to improve the performance. In 1984, ITV 1—Channel 3, as it will now be called—had on average 48·7 per cent. of the audience. That has fallen in the space of five years to 41·7 per cent. in the first three-quarters of this year. Channel 3 is supposed to be a mass audience channel.
The figures become even more striking when we consider the percentage of families who own a television who watch a channel at peak times. In 1984, on average 15 per cent. of families with a television watched BBC 1 at peak times. That remains the case in 1989. For ITV Channel 3 the figure was 21 per cent. in 1984 and 16 per cent. in 1989. If we are worried about quality, the first thing that we should ask ourselves is whether—I believe that there is a strong case for it—the quality of Channel 3 should be improved. Viewers are voting with their feet in increasing numbers. Or do we believe that Channel 3 is a monument of our culture—touch not a hair of its head? I hope that we shall be able to explore the reasons behind that thinking.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mellor: No. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is persisting when I have given up 15 minutes of the time for my reply. The hon. Gentleman spoke for almost as long as I have to reply. I am trying to reply to the debate.
In the Bill we have sought sincerely to set out the basis upon which we can more sensibly allocate Channel 3 franchises. We have sought to find the basis on which a quality threshold can be erected which George Russell, chairman of the IBA, described as a Becher's brook. Only those who are able not only to satisfy the ITC as to the credibility of their programming, but, as my hon. Friend for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, able as never before to produce business plans and show the financial wherewithal to undertake such programming, will he able to participate in the tendering procedure that will allow a bid to determine the issue.
It is not envisaged that the quality threshold will be anything other than a high fence to jump. It is not envisaged that those who jump it will display the wide range of quality bids suggested. The purpose of that threshold is that it should pose a genuine obstacle and a lot of people should not be able to get over it.
I understand and appreciate the anxieties that have been expressed by hon. Members and I appreciate that the question of quality goes to the heart of the Bill. The balance between quality and money is a matter of great significance. In clause 16 we believe that we have set forth a basis upon which the ITC can properly regulate the system. The fact that in "exceptional circumstances" the ITC will not be obliged to accept the highest bidder means that we have provided an important area of discretion.
I repeat that the wording of the Bill as it presently stands is not set in concrete. There will be plenty of opportunity in Committee to consider the wording as it relates to the quality threshold and to consider whether the discretion given to the ITC is adequate. I take up the offer made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook of sensible debates in Committee on this issue.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister tell us the answer to the question that intrigues us all—what are the possible exceptional circumstances in which the highest bidder might be turned down?

Mr. Mellor: It is interesting that George Russell has also refused to deal with that—[Interruption.] The reason is simple; he does not want to bind his hands in advance of seeing the bids as they come in. The right hon. Gentleman asked me the question and, having answered for George Russell, I shall answer for me. If it were possible to define what we meant by "exceptional circumstances" we would not need an exceptional circumstance provision—[Laughter.] One would have a list, but a list is restrictive and does not give one scope for the exercise of discretion. One would be tied down unnecessarily. Opposition Members laughed more loudly than I suspect many of the Channel 3 comedy shows would have allowed them to do. If they can come up with a sensible alternative I put them on notice to do so. It is not as easy as all that.
In the end we assume that it is up to us to save our British broadcasting, but in reality it is up to us to allow British broadcasting to develop. It is up to us to put the minimum number of problems in the way of viewers and listeners getting the choice that they want. In our enthusiasm to do good we should be careful of patronising


the public. I believe that the public are infinitely more sophisticated than we give them credit for. When given the opportunity the public will not settle for the lowest level of pap. I do not believe that most of us, if we are sensible, say when we meet our constituents in the high street, "Because you are only capable of settling for the lowest level of pap we have to spend hours in this place saving you from yourselves."
Some people have complacently said that all we need do is retain the status quo. The IBA carried out a survey, however, and asked the public about their viewing preferences—49 per cent. said that there was nothing on the television that they wanted to watch at the time they wanted to watch it.
The Bill stands in the great tradition of developments in broadcasting, all of which took place under a Conservative Government. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 238.

Division No. 23]
[at 10.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cartwright, John


Allason, Rupert
Cash, William


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amos, Alan
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Gran, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Day, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Devlin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dicks, Terry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Eggar, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Sir Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Favell, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Dame Janet


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Franks, Cecil


Buck, Sir Antony
Freeman, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, George


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gorst, John
Madel, David


Gow, Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Baling N)
Maples, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marlow, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grist, Ian
Mates, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Hague, William
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mellor, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Iain


Hannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mitchell, Sir David


Harris, David
Moate, Roger


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Christopher
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Mudd, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hill, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Norris, Steve


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Page, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Irvine, Michael
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jackson, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Janman, Tim
Portillo, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knox, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, Sir William


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Steen, Anthony






Stern, Michael
wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stevens, Lewis
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Waller, Gary


Stokes, Sir John
Walters, Sir Dennis


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Whitney, Ray


Temple-Morris, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thorne, Neil
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Tony Durant.


Waddington, Rt Hon David



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbyn, Jeremy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cox, Tom


Alton, David
Crowther, Stan


Anderson, Donald
Cryer, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Dr John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dalyell, Tam


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Darling, Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Doran, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benyon, W.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alexander


Bidwell, Sydney
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Fearn, Ronald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flynn, Paul


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buckley, George J.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galloway, George


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clay, Bob
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Coleman, Donald
Gould, Bryan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Graham, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)





Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Nellist, Dave


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Brien, William


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Pendry, Tom


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prescott, John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Geraint
Radice, Giles


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Randall, Stuart


Hoyle, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Simon (Soulhwark)
Rogers, Allan


Illsley, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ingram, Adam
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Janner, Greville
Rowlands, Ted


Johnston, Sir Russell
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sheerman, Barry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Charles
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Clare


Lambie, David
Sillars, Jim


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Litherland, Robert
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Steel, Rt Hon David


McAllion, John
Stott, Roger


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Ian
Straw, Jack


Macdonald, Calum A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McGrady, Eddie
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McKelvey, William
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Vaz, Keith


Maclennan, Robert
Walden, George


McNamara, Kevin
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McWilliam, John
Wall, Pat


Madden, Max
Wallace, James


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Walley, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Maxton, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Brian


Meale, Alan
Winnick, David


Michael, Alun
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wray, Jimmy


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tellers for the Noes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Frank Cook and


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Frank Haynes


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Question put:-

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 303.

Division No. 24]
[10.15


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flannery, Martin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Alton, David
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Fraser, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fyfe, Maria


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Galloway, George


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beckett, Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beggs, Roy
Gordon, Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grocott, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Hardy, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley, Keith
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Henderson, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hinchliffe, David


Buchan, Norman
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Buckley, George J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hoyle, Doug


Cartwright, John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles


Cox, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Crowther, Stan
Lambie, David


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, Dr John
Leighton, Ron


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Doran, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Douglas, Dick
McCartney, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McFall, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McGrady, Eddie


Eadie, Alexander
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maclennan, Robert


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McNamara, Kevin


Fatchett, Derek
McWilliam, John


Fearn, Ronald
Madden, Max


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marek, Dr John


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)





Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martlew, Eric
Short, Clare


Maxton, John
Sillars, Jim


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Alun
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Mowlam, Marjorie
Straw, Jack


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nellist, Dave
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


O'Brien, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Walden, George


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wall, Pat


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L. 
Walley, Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Frank Cook and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Frank Haynes.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Allason, Rupert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Budgen, Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Chris


Aspinwall, Jack
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bellingham, Henry
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Chope, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Churchill, Mr


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davis, David (Boothferry)




Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Jack, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Janman, Tim


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fallon, Michael
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Favell, Tony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Fishburn, John Dudley
Kilfedder, James


Fookes, Dame Janet
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Forman, Nigel
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Forth, Eric
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Knapman, Roger


Fox, Sir Marcus
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Franks, Cecil
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Freeman, Roger
Knowles, Michael


French, Douglas
Knox, David


Gale, Roger
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Gardiner, George
Lang, Ian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Latham, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gorst, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gow, Ian
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Lightbown, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Lilley, Peter


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Gregory, Conal
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Lord, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Grist, Ian
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Hague, William
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Madel, David


Hannam, John
Malins, Humfrey


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mans, Keith


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Maples, John


Harris, David
Marlow, Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hayes, Jerry
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mates, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Maude, Hon Francis


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mellor, David


Hill, James
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Mills, Iain


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mitchell, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Moate, Roger


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Sir Hector


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Moss, Malcolm


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Neale, Gerrard





Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stokes, Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Norris, Steve
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Summerson, Hugo


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Pawsey, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thorne, Neil


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trotter, Neville


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roberts, Wyn (CONWY)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rowe, Andrew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waller, Gary


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shelton, Sir William
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Broadcasting Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act;
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Lilley.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall not detain the House for long. As I understand it, the resolution is fairly broad and, therefore, I can raise a number of issues based on the resolution and on the financial effects of the Bill which are outlined on pages ix and x.
The Secretary of State is empowered to make out of money voted by Parliament—which we shall no doubt be agreeing to shortly, on the nod—a start-up loan not exceeding £5 million for the Independent Television Commission and £3 million for the Radio Authority. As to the money that is to be spent by the commission, under the terms of clause 26 it will examine the provision to be made for Channel 5. I have no doubt that a number of regions will make representations, but Yorkshire and Humberside, with a centre based in Bradford, should be given serious consideration.
Clause 128 establishes the Broadcasting Standards Council, which will have annual running costs of approximately £1 million, and which will deal largely with a code of sex and violence. Hon. Members have already mentioned the very light hand with which the IBA has guided the running of commercial television stations. In fact, it has done so with an extremely light hand. I hope that the Broadcasting Standards Council will turn its attention not just to sex and violence on television, although I do not deny that control of those aspects is important.
The IBA completely ignored the legislation affecting natural breaks. When feature films are given their theatrical release, great efforts are made to ensure that they suffer no interruptions. But when shown on television, they are arbitrarily chopped about, to allow for the insertion of advertising. The BSC should introduce some form of regulation covering the intrusion of advertising, so that it is kept separate and distinct from programmes. Several film makers have been appalled at the way in which their efforts have been mutilated by the arbitrary insertion of commercial breaks at intervals that are convenient not for the viewer but for advertisers. The powers of the Broadcasting Standards Council should be amended in Committee to cover that problem.
Clause 5, dealing with the Bill's financial effects, is the Bill's most controversial section, because it provides for the auctioning of licences. It is suggested that the revenue thus yielded will total at least £210 million. I suspect that that is one of the main reasons for the legislation.
There is one curious aspect of the bidding procedure, about which the Broadcasting Consortium has expressed reservations. I quote from that consortium's circular, which I imagine has been sent to a number of right hon. and hon. Members. The consortium comprises a number of concerned organisations at which one would be hard put to cavil. They include Age Concern, Alcohol Concern, the British Council of Churches, Community Service

Volunteers, the Deaf Broadcasting Council, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Council of Women, Oxfam and Save the Children Fund.
The consortium comments:
The auction process (Clause 17) whereby the licence goes to the highest bidder will give money to the Treasury but will therefore take out of the system finance, that could and should be spent on improving the range and quality of programmes. This bidding process encourages higher bids than may be affordable. The incentive for prospective licence holders is to put in a higher cash bid to the Treasury rather than invest their resources in more than just meeting the quality threshold. There must be a danger that the highest bidder will have overbidded and have insufficient finances left to fund the range and quality of programs received. If a price can be fixed for the franchise renewal, why can't it be fixed at the outset?
That comes from an organisation that does not have a financial vested interest, and has only the concerns of the consumer at heart. It is an important representation that goes to the heart of the Bill.
There are also some curious side issues regarding the tendering procedure. The Minister can issue qualifications for the licence by order including those, for example, for what I am sure will come to be known as the 20 per cent. rule.
Clause 163 empowers the Minister to issue orders, but it does not state whether they will be affirmative orders whether the negative procedure will be used.
Clause 163(1) provides:
Any power of the Secretary of State to make regulations or an order under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
Clause 165 gives a number of definitions, but they do not include a definition of a statutory instrument. Therefore, it seems that the Secretary of State will be able to alter the various qualifications for licences, and the orders that he may issue are contained in schedule 2(2)(2), which provides:
The Secretary of State may, in the case of any category of relevant services not falling within sub-paragraph (1]), by order prescribe the maximum number of licences which may at any time be held by any one person to provide relevant services falling within that category.
The House has debated ownership of the media tonight. Here is a snippet from the Bill, which shows that the Minister may change, by order, the degree of ownership. Schedule 2(2)(5), defines the category of 20 per cent., stating:—
The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) amend sub-paragraph (1), (3) or (4) by substituting a different percentage for the percentage for the time being specified there;"

Those sub-paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) relate to the proportion of ownership that may be held by the proprietors of national and local newspapers. They are quite important powers.
I suspect that clause 163 means that the statutory instrument will not be subject to parliamentary procedure, and I realise that that is of academic interest to the House. The Minister can correct that if he chooses. If that is not the intention, he may say so.
A Bill normally includes information about whether the affirmative procedure is required. That would be most desirable because under it, the matter comes before the House, is debated and there has to be a resolution of approval. Where the negative procedure is used there can be a prayer.
Many statutory instruments do not go through the House and are not subject to any parliamentary


procedure. If the Bill is passed, containing that facility for the Minister, an important part of the power of the Bill can be exercised by him. The power is given by the House without its ever seeing the instrument. We are considering an important part of the media, and that aspect of the Bill is less than satisfactory. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that he will alter that in Committee, to ensure that the relevant delegated legislation comes before the House.
Clause 17 suggests another curious set of circumstances, because the commission will have powers to issue rules governing the circumstances where a person who has submitted a bid cannot take over the bid because of a breach of the commission's rules. Clause 17(8) provides:
Any such rules shall be published by the Commission in such manner as they consider appropriate, but shall not come into force unless they have been approved by the Secretary of State.
That is not just delegating powers to the Secretary of State, it is delegating powers to the Secretary of State which he delegates to the commission; but the commission makes the rules that the Secretary of State can approve. The clause does not say that he has to approve a draft or that he has the right to refuse, although that might be implied by the fact that he has to approve them. Nevertheless, these rules, which govern an important part of the Bill—cash bids—will not come before the House. I see no requirement for the Secretary of State to bring such measures to the House by way of affirmative instrument or the negative procedure so that hon. Members have at least a slim chance of debating the issue for an hour and a half.
The power in the Bill lies in clause 17 and the cash tender provisions. It is wrong that Parliament should hand over powers over which it can no longer exercise any scrutiny. Powers such as that to determine when an Act will come into effect are delegated all the time. The House hands over many such powers to Ministers. They are routine and technical and nobody would cavil at them. I suggest that these powers, however, are germane and central to the operation of the Bill and that we should make the alterations that I have suggested.
I do not think that present arrangements for the control of delegated legislation are satisfactory. Even the minimal scrutiny that we have now is being sidestepped here. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance. I regret that the Bill has been given a Second Reading. I voted against it. There is obviously plenty of room for improvement in its detail to allow the House some involvement in its application.

Mr. George Walden: The Bill is predominantly about money—perhaps a little too much so. My main anxiety follows that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—it concerns the auctioning of franchises.
One thing that nobody can say about the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is that it was well structured. He began by paying tribute to the best traditions of British public service broadcasting and ended by mocking the ghost of Lord Reith, who was the inspirer of those best traditions. I wonder whether that is a precedent—the first time a Conservative Home Secretary has mocked the ideals of Lord Reith. For my pains, I have been dubbed, with others, a Jeremiah. I tabled a motion, as have others, which together collected about 80

expressions of reservation about the Bill. That is an awful lot of Jeremiahs. It is perfectly reasonable to be pessimistic about the future of British broadcasting in view of the way in which the Government have handled not only the Bill but, much more importantly, the White Paper.
Despite the arguments put by interested and non-interested people against the franchise option right from the start of the discussion when the White Paper was issued, the Government have gone ahead with it. One is entitled to ask why they have gone ahead, having so comprehensively lost the argument.
I was shocked by the sheer shoddiness of Ministers' arguments in defence of the Bill. First we heard the contention that we had encountered all this pessimism and all those Jeremiahs 20 or 30 years ago when commercial television was introduced. That is an extremely shoddy argument because, as the Government acknowledged with their next breath, we now face a technological revolution, which quite obviously and self-evidently poses far greater threats to the quality of broadcasting than were posed in the completely different circumstances of 30 years ago. That is a shoddy and shameful argument to come from Ministers.
The Government then assure us that there is no threat to the BBC or to Channel 4, that the Bill is not concerned with them and that we are preserving the tradition of public sector broadcasting. That, too, is a shameful and misleading argument. Anyone who has spoken to people high up in the BBC and Channel 4 knows perfectly well that those people are aware that if the quality goes down in ITV—that fulcrum of British broadcasting in the centre ground—the BBC will be dragged down after it. That is what we should be debating. If we had not had such a disgracefully intellectually shallow White Paper, that issue would have been tackled right at the start. Of course the quality of the BBC and Channel 4—such as it is—is in danger. So it is quite shoddy for the Government to take the feeble line that somehow the BBC is safeguarded by not being mentioned in that context.
ITV and the terrestrial and commercial channels as they now exist are and will be at the fulcrum of the broadcasting revolution. On the one hand there will be the public service channels and traditions as exemplified best by the BBC, and on the other hand there will be satellites and all the new forms of broadcasting made possible by the advance of technology. If that central fulcrum is tipped downwards —and that is what the Bill will do—the whole industry will slide. The process has already begun. Opposition Members were quite right to point out that some broadcasting companies are already spending less on programmes in anticipation of the Bill.
We have faced a barrage of extremely cheap and shoddy arguments from the Government which, frankly, are totally unworthy of them, particularly relating to a Bill of such enormous social consequence. Why have the Government got themselves into this position? Here I stress that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is not responsible for the Bill. He is the victim of legislative inertia which has come about because the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, cannot face the prospect of admitting that they are wrong, even when they have been proved wrong by the overwhelming body of opinion.
How did they get themselves into this corner? Let me offer three explanations. I regret to say that the first one obviously involves the animus against the broadcasting


establishment. It is sad to say that, as it implies that the spirit of the Bill is affected by political pique against the duopoly—the broadcasting establishment—but that is the only conclusion that I can draw. The resentment against the present broadcasting establishment is, to some extent, reasonable because it has been complacent on quality, because it has shown gross efficiency—to be fair, that has now been corrected—and because there has been political bias on the BBC.
One could argue, therefore, that the Government's evident resentment against the duopoly is reasonable. But —this is the main point—we must surely look wider than that. On such a major Bill, it would be wrong and irresponsible of the Government to be influenced to the slightest degree by political pique because they are setting the future standards of British broadcasting. If they are to be influenced by political pique, let them remember that they are taking it out on the public, not on the broadcasting duopoly, and it is the public who will suffer.
The second thing that strikes me when considering the Government's motives is the sheer narrowness of their concept of broadcasting. There is a philosophical misunderstanding of how the cash nexus is applied. In the Bill, the doctrine is that the cash nexus must prevail above all—we are debating the money resolution—and considerations of public service are secondary.
The Treasury wants to make as much money as possible from broadcasting. It is completely naked about that, but what does it mean? What will it do with the few grubby extra fivers that it will get from the debasement of the British broadcasting system? It may spend them on remedial lessons for the semi-literate. That is my humble suggestion as to how it might dispose of some of the money. The Treasury—I specifically stress "the Treasury" because I do not believe that this is a Home Office point—is cynically saying, "Why cannot everyone benefit from the debasement of public service broadcasting?" That is the kernel of its argument, which is why it is such a shallow and despicable argument for a Tory Government to put.
The third motive is the most depressing. I detect in the attacks on Lord Reith, which I suspect mark a new and very sad stage in the development of the Tory party, what I call a "bread and circuses" philosophy. I do not believe that the Government care much about the quality of television that people watch. The unspoken philosophy is, "They watch trash, they like trash, so we shall give them more trash." That is what is behind the Bill, because no one who had thought about it in historical or social terms or who had read a book about popular culture, of the kind that people have been writing for hundreds of years from Dr. Johnson onwards, could put their name or subscribe to this cheap and shoddy Bill.
The Government are at a stage from which they cannot retreat, and that is sad. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister made noises about possible compromises, which I considered carefully, but they do not go to the heart of the matter. If they had any imagination or sense of responsibility—that is what it amounts to—they would study hard the alternatives put forward, particularly by the Campaign for Quality Broadcasting. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has courteously received and talked to those people. All that the Government would have to do is show a modicum of political courage

and say, "No, we haven't got it right; this time we aren't right just because everyone else is taking the opposite view." This time the Government should have the courage to stand their proposal on its head.
Perhaps the Government do not understand what I am making such a fuss about, or even what I am talking about. In that case, I have no means of conveying my meaning to them, but if they do not make a fundamental change in their attitude on this auction of franchises, not just a mealy-mouthed compromise, and if they want to know what I am going on and on about, let them imagine how the history books in 10 years' time, at the turn of the millennium, will look back at the present Administration. The history books will say, "They did well in the Falklands, they raised the standard of living and they gave Britain back a bit of self-confidence", but then they will say, "but they also made it a cheaper and nastier country" —because that is what this Bill is all about.
In conclusion, I want to explain why I voted against the Bill, bearing in mind that we are discussing the money resolution. I do not find the talk about compromise at all reassuring, because the Government in their despicably shallow White Paper started from such an extreme position on the cash nexus alone that even if they move to the middle ground they will not have moved very far towards sanity. I do not hold out much hope to my hon. Friends who, like me, are disturbed by the Bill, in terms of what will happen in Committee. I am sorry to say that I suspect that the Government will not show sufficient political courage to say, "Look we've got it wrong, so we're going to turn the proposal on its head and take a lead."
I leave the Government with one bit of advice about their future speechwriting if they do not take that course. To start with, they will have to take out all the stuff about "family values" because people will laugh in their faces if they go ahead with the Bill and continue to preach about family values. The sort of people who are interested in these franchises are not very interested in family values.
Secondly, the Government can stop suggesting that the Church of England is falling down on its spiritual duties to the nation. That sort of high-sounding stuff will have to go out of their speeches, too, because one cannot sell the most powerful cultural medium in the country for a few bits of silver and then blame it all on the bishops.
Finally, the Government's speechwriters will have to stop all the stuff about how the teachers must do a better job in the classroom. One cannot take that line if one is simultaneously dishing the dirt on the selfsame children in their homes.
One way and another, we can look forward to some pretty thin speeches on political subjects from the Tory Front Bench. Rather than get themselves into the absurd and hypocritical position of going on about moral and spiritual values and the rest while selling out to the cheapjacks in broadcasting, I suggest that the Government think again.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made a brave and courageous speech. I hope that his hon. Friends who disagreed fundamentally with what he said will at least admire his courage in saying it. His speech clearly came from someone who believes strongly in the subject which


he was debating. I am glad that I stayed long enough to hear him. Knowing how the Conservative party is intolerant of opposition, especially in its own ranks, I hope that nothing untoward happens to the hon. Gentleman on the way home this evening. When the ancient cry of "Who goes home?" goes up, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will select a couple of stalwart friends to accompany him across the park or wherever else he is going.
During the previous debate—I am now speaking on the money resolution—it was interesting that Conservative and Opposition Members agreed on several issues. At one stage, I felt sensitive about being considered to be unadventurous and something of a conservative. It put me in mind of a poem that Christopher Logue wrote in 1966. In a debate on the money resolution I shall not go through it, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is exceedingly long. It gives a serious of reasons why people should vote Labour. It said, for example:
I shall vote Labour because God votes Labour.
I shall vote Labour because my husband looks like Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
That rather dates it.
I shall vote Labour because I want to shop in a covered precinct stretching from Yeovil to Glasgow.
I shall vote Labour because if I don't vote Labour my balls will drop off;
I shall vote Labour because the Queen's stamp collection is the best in the world.
It concludes by saying:
I shall vote Labour because deep in my heart I am really a Conservative
The standard of public sector broadcasting in Britain is genuinely admired not only here but around the world. In attempting to conserve it and move away from the ludicrous idea of auctioning franchises, Opposition Members are conservatives on the grounds that we recognise that certain standards and institutions are worth conserving. That is the whole point; that is why I welcome the words of the hon. Member for Buckingham, and associate myself closely with them.
I do not intend to cover all the points made in the Second Reading debate. Opposition Members are worried because, if we are wrong, we may be embarrassed in a few years, but no damage will have been done. But if the Government are wrong, enormous damage will have been done to something important. It is not for us to disprove the Government's position. It is for the Government to prove their position because they propose such a fundamental change in the structure of broadcasting.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said that television was better in the United States. I have seen television in the United States, and I cannot say that I thought that it was better than British television. No Conservative Member has pointed to a country where the standards, choice and variety on television is better than in this country.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am fortunate to spend a good deal of time in southern California. The range and intellectual content of programmes and the choice available to the public is vastly greater than anything in Britain.

Mr. Banks: I had been wondering where the hon. Gentleman had been in recent months. I have now discovered that he was in southern California. I hope that

he was serving the interests of his constituents well. The United States is an enormous country, and television in southern California might be better than that—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: In London.

Mr. Banks: No, in Washington and New York. My experience is based not on frequent visits but on several visits on parliamentary business such as fact-finding tours. I watched television in New York and Washington, and I did not find that the standard or variety was better than here. The hon. Gentleman will not find support for his view among members of the population who have seen American television.
We oppose the Bill because more channels do not necessarily mean more variety. More television does not even mean better television. If there are to be 57 varieties of the same and more chewing gum for the eyes, we shall not be any closer to obtaining the standards of excellence and variety that we expect.
We want to conserve what is good, but we are not reactionary and just resisting the idea of change. Many things could be done to the structure of television and broadcasting to improve it immeasurably. So far, nothing in the Bill or in the money resolution offers us such improvements.
We will resist the Bill in Committee. In view of my modest contribution tonight, I hope that the Committee of Selection might even contemplate putting me on that Committee. I should like to cross swords with the Minister. For the moment, however, we are united in grief as Chelsea supporters. I am sure that that small common point will be lost when we get down to discussing the Bill.
We believe that the Government's proposal will undermine standards that are accepted in this country as being among the finest in the world. On this occasion I am proud to say that I am a conservative with a small "c".

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I share the hesitations of those who are pausing for thought before they vote the moneys for the Secretary of State to operate under the Bill now it has received its Second Reading. I share some of the anxieties encapsulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and by other earlier speakers.
As Conservatives we are rightly proud of the system that we set up about 30 years ago, which combined the BBC services with those of the new ITV companies. That system was approved despite ferocious opposition from the Labour party, and by luck as well as by judgment the mixture has worked extremely well. I share the dismay about the encomia expressed for American television, as I think that, apart from Australia, its television is the worst in the world. I allow myself to be chauvinistic about our television, which is unusual for me, as I am a true internationalist and a keen European. By luck and by judgment, we have the best television in the world and we are rightly proud of it.
When the Minister replied to the debate, he had the opportunity to refer to the possibility of giving serious reconsideration to the tender, auction, maximum-bid, sealed-envelope system proposed in the Bill. That is an obnoxious system if ever I heard one and it is a pity that my hon. and learned Friend did not offer the House the concession that, in Committee, profound amendments would be made to the proposal, including the


augmentation and reinforcement of quality considerations and criteria. With his usual adroitness, all that my hon. and learned Friend referred to was the possibility of rewording some of the threshold descriptions. That is inadequate to those of my hon. Friends who share my genuine hesitations.
I am not one of those Conservatives who would attack the Archbishop of Canterbury—I do not need to create a macho image by doing so—because I support him. He said that broadcasting is not just like an ordinary business and that there is a big difference between making programmes to make money and making money to make programmes. Mostly by luck rather than by judgment, we have achieved that unique combination contained in the latter phrase. That has benefited the public interest and has provided the essential balance in the duopoly system produced by the right kind of competition. Channel 4 is living proof of what can be done by mixing intelligent commercialism with the necessary subvention.
Most of my colleagues were keen to criticise Channel 4 when it started, claiming that it was subversive and that it would be inimical to the political opinions that we might represent. Now I find that, virtually without exception, most of my colleagues praise Channel 4 and regard it as a great success. It has contributed to the general average quality of television.
What a shame that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister was unable to give those necessary concessions. That is why we should hesitate before we vote on the money resolution, and why I urge colleagues with my feelings of hesitation to vote against the motion or to abstain on it, as on Second Reading.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Before voting on the money resolution, the House should consider a few matters. When the previous Home Secretary spoke on the original White Paper, one theme of his speech was the notion of regulation with a light touch. As one who has worked for two ITV companies, I find that notion one that fills me with horror.
I have experienced regulation with a heavy touch. I worked for an existing ITV station, TV-am, which was regulated with a heavy touch. I remember the day when the man from the London electricity board came round to cut off our electricity because the company had not paid the bill, and the month when nobody received their salary on time because the money was not in the bank.
I remember, after we had had perhaps possibly our third change of ownership, sitting at my VDU when the new chairman, Lord Marsh, came round. We fell to talking about the previous chairman, Peter Jay. Lord Marsh said to me, "Funny thing about Peter Jay—we" meaning the board members—"knew he knew nothing about business but thought that he knew all about

journalism." I said, "Funny you should say that. The journalists knew he knew nothing about journalism but thought that he knew all about business."
Those were the kind of people that the old, unregulated system allowed to run ITV companies. Within months of TV-am getting the franchise, it was able to dump virtually all the proposals with which it won the franchise. If that was heavy regulation, Opposition Members look forward with trepidation to light regulation.
The other issue that we should consider before voting on the resolution is the concentration of ownership, which was raised on 7 November. The then Home Secretary said that there should not be a concentration of ownership. Mr. Ruper Murdoch owns four national daily papers and one satellite television company and is widely rumoured to be in the running to bid for LWT when the auction takes place. If that is not a concentration of ownership, I do not know what is.
If the Bill will not address the position as regards Rupertt Murdoch, it is idle to talk of its ensuring that there is not a concentration of ownership. It will not do for the Minister to mouth "Robert Maxwell" over the Dispatch Box to my hon. Friends. We do not care who has the concentration of ownership. The sort of concentration of ownership that people like Rupert Murdoch currently have in British broadcasting and media is inimical to the interests of a free press and democracy. We want the Government to come forward with serious proposals against it.
Many Conservative Members do not understand how regulation works. It is not enough to say that the companies will be obliged to do something about children's programmes and regional programmes. The reason why regulation has worked in the past is that it is quite specific about when those programmes go out and about their quality. Under the Bill, companies will be allowed to get away with their obligation to children's television by putting out dirt-cheap, ages-old Popeye cartoons in the middle of the night. The Bill contains nothing to stop a company getting away with that.
It seems that, in the headlong pursuit of market values, Conservative Members are willing to throw away all that is good about British television. Having worked for an ITV company, I would not go overboard pontificating about standards—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act;
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.

Broadcasting Bill [Ways and Means]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the inclusion of—

(1) provisions under or by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act by the Independent Television Commission established under the Act are or may be required—

(a) to pay or forfeit sums to that body in connection with such licences;
(b) to pay sums to that body as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission; and
(c) to make payments to the Channel Four Television Corporation established under the Act;

and provision for sums falling within sub-paragraph (a) or (b) to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;
(2) provisions under or by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act by the Radio Authority established under the Act are or may be required—

(a) to pay or forfeit sums to that body in conection with such licences; and
(b) to pay sums to that body as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission;

and provision for such sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;
(3) provisions under which the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of the Act) are required to pay sums as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and provision for such sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;
(4) provisions requiring the payment of any other sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, this is an entirely separate debate. I know that the Minister is aggrieved at not having been able to reply to the earlier debate, so may I ask for your indulgence in this debate, and ask you to allow the Minister to answer some of the points from the earlier debate, given the wideness of this motion?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Both motions are wide. If the Minister seeks to catch my eye, I shall certainly call him, and I am sure that he will respond to this debate.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Before I come to the detailed points in the motion—as I shall—it would be right to comment briefly on the extraordinary speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden).
I very much admire my hon. Friend's clarity and passion, but his speech—I say this with the greatest affection and respect—was studded with an arrogance that did him no credit. He is not in a position to deliver a lecture to his fellow Conservative Members in the terms that he did.
My hon. Friend said that the duopoly showed many signs of complacency, inefficiency and occasional bias. That is true, but he did not suggest what he would do about that. Many of us feel that it is the public, whom he seeks to protect from what he described as filth, who require some protection against the complacency, inefficiency and bias—to use his terms—that are evident in some of the programmes broadcast by the BBC and the independent television companies—

Mr. George Walden: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I will not. I sought to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech, and he did not show the courtesy of allowing me to do so. My hon. Friend's speech went way over the top, and I want to record the fact that he does not speak for many Conservative Members.
What we seek for our constituents—this motion will give them it—is a much wider range of choice, because they are for the most part adult, sophisticated people who are perfectly capable of forming their own judgments. I remember the famous phrase, "Trust the people". I am prepared to trust the people to make their own judgments, provided that they are given a wide range of choices.
British television—I am as entitled to my opinion as anyone else has been the best in the world. A great deal of it remains incomparably so, but we have been overtaken in some areas, notably by the United States and, to a lesser extent, by the Federal Republic of Germany.
There is a much wider range of choice of good and bad programmes in the United States. I spend a good deal of time there, as does the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), in pursuit of British interests, and I want to mention some of the programmes that are available in America but are not available here.
In California, which takes services from across the country, there are about 50 channels. I concede at once that about 10 or 15 of them purvey trash—the same sort of trash as the BBC and ITV buy from the Americans to show here. I want nothing to do with those programmes; but there is, at the same time, a range of other quality and minority channels that people in this country cannot even hope to receive.
For example, in southern Calfornia, there is a channel wholly devoted to the environment—to nature, animals and forestry. We sometimes buy bits of that marvellous programming. Another channel is wholly devoted to the Hispanic and Mexican minorities in California. Another is devoted to the Japanese minority, who pay for it—and good luck to them for doing so.
Cable News Network is a well-known 24-hour-a-day news programme which people can turn on and get direct news from the whole world of a quality that at the moment we do not match. I regret that, but it is true.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: No. I want to deliver my speech as quickly as possible.
Another programme confines itself to verbatim debates not only in the two Houses of Congress and the state legislatures but to debates in universities on the most esoteric and complex subjects. Such programmes are not available here. The American public are not more intelligent than our public, but they have a wider choice and they exercise it. I hope that the Bill, enabled by the ways and means resolution, will give the British people more choice so that they can make their own judgments.
I shall end as I started, with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who spoke at length—

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is outlining in great detail the qualities, as he perceives them, of American television. Will he give the House some validation of his view by telling us how much time he has spent watching


American television? Has he visited America casually or does he visit it regularly? Has he gained his information over a regular period of many months?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman. I spent 17 years in the United States as an editor of Time and Newsweek International and of the Washington Post. I frequently go back to the United States to deliver lectures at universities and I go there on business trips. I keep close contact with American television and I think that I speak with knowledge of the subject.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: No, I must get on with my speech.
If the Reith standards of the BBC had remained at the core of our broadcasting I would be perfectly happy with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. However, time has moved on and, unfortunately, the BBC all too often engages in what my hon. Friend described as bias and in what I would call occasional vendettas.
A large proportion of the American air force is in my constituency. A year or 18 months ago, the BBC suggested in a programme that the pilots of its F111 aircraft were sex-crazed maniacs who for strange psycho-sexual reasons were desperate to "nuke" the Soviet Union. That programme was a total travesty. It was then virtually repeated in the BBC's own publication. Protests were made at every level, but at first the BBC arrogantly refused to have anything to do with them.
In the past week, too, the BBC once again produced a travesty of the truth when it suggested that the American air force had interfered in the business of the House by suggesting that, if the Government privatised the Property Services Agency, the American air force would object in some way or another. The American air force did no such thing. The BBC lied and knew that it was lying.
That is one of the problems that we have to face. One cannot discipline a broadcasting organisation. Having been an editor, I would resist any effort by politicians to do so. However, it is necesssary for our people to have a wider range of choice so that, as sophisticated individuals, they can make up their own minds. My complaint about my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is that he simply will not trust the people.

Mr. John Browne: I rise to deliver a brief speech. In so doing, I declare a financial interest in the broadcasting industry. Above all, the Bill tackles the technological advances which already face us. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) because I do not think that there is any attempt on the part of the Government to "dish the dirt". As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, the aim is to trust the people. After all, with the vast amount of choice that is to become available, the individual viewer and not the executive of the television company will become the programmer.
Technically, quality is a relatively easy thing to get a grip on. The essential problem is one of programme content, and it is vital because of the enormous power and influence of television. We have seen growing evidence of

the fact that bad language and violence on television are beginning to affect behaviour in real life, so this is a most important issue, and one that is difficult to define.
Quality also varies according to individual taste. When the golf enthusiast sees a lot of golf on televison, he feels that he is seeing television on high quality, but the tennis enthusiast seeing endless golf might feel it to be low quality. It all depends on the individual tastes and interests of the viewer.

Sir Anthony Grant: As a golf enthusiast, I cannot allow my hon. Friend to get away with that. The quality of golf reporting in Britain is superb. In America, it is awful.

Mr. Browne: I shall not disagree with my hon. Friend, who is a far better golfer than I am. None the less, the definition of quality varies according to the taste and background interests of the individual making the judgment. Quality is a subjective, individual value judgment. It also varies with time. A television audience 40 years ago, before golf was widely played or American football widely known over here, would have considered programmes on such sports to be low-quality television.
I hope that the Government will allow the ITC tremendous flexibility. If they appoint people with good and proven judgment, of varying backgrounds and interests and representing a wide spectrum of age groups, the flexibility permitted in the Bill will be important in allowing those people the freedom to exercise their judgment.
It has been said that competitive tender bidders will outbid themselves, and that quality will suffer. I do not agree, and the most important reason for my disagreement is the single word "competition". Competition will come from DBS, cable and the other terrestrial stations, such as BBC 1, BBC 2 and Channel 4, which will remain—and they will remain as benchmarks. The competition in television is for viewers. If viewers do not like a programme, they will switch channels. Effectively, the viewers will become the programmers. If the programmes are no good, the viewers will not watch them. If, in the viewers' perspective, the standards of programmes drop, they will switch to other programmes. The Bill caters for that in a clever way, by allowing that flexibility for the ITC.
Control is an important issue. I accept that cross-ownership has existed for some time, but with global information societies, this is an increasingly serious problem. Cross-control is a more serious issue, so we should keep looking at the 20 per cent. hurdle. In a company with many small shareholders, a 20 per cent. shareholder can exercise "effective" control. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister should examine that aspect in Committee.
Another important sector is religion. We have to ask ourselves exactly what counts as religion and to ensure that cults with religious titles do not creep in under the guise of genuine religious organisations. That is another important matter for the Committee.
All in all, I think that the Bill tackles a difficult subject in a way that will correctly adapt to the technological change that we now have to accept. The Bill allows for flexibility and for real choice to be exercised by the viewer. By trusting the viewer, we shall have the best quality that we can possibly get in the circumstances. The flexibility


being allowed for the ITC will be greatly to the benefit of maintaining that quality. I think that the Bill should be supported.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I shall intervene only briefly in this debate. It might be slightly repetitious, but I do not think that it would be out of order to express the hope once again that even at this stage my hon. and learned Friend the Minister might refer to the possibility of concessions being made in Committee. That would help hon. Members on both sides of the House who have genuine and profound anxieties about the proposals as they stand. We are not nit-picking or being difficult for the sake of it. We are not trying to appear to be pseudo-intellectuals, which is always difficult for any politician, anyway.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend to accept that we have serious problems to resolve in our own minds, having had conversations with many people about these matters. It is a fact, not merely an opinion, that if the maximum tender system comes into play only a long time after the quality threshold has been passed, those with the most financial muscle are bound to secure tenders for the new franchises, without any exception that I can discern on any near horizon.
Although the House has voted against the Bill being considered by a Special Standing Committee—I voted against the proposition because I think that the Bill can be perfectly well dealt with by a normal Committee—I think that it would be helpful to the House, even at this late stage, when we are considering the more technical aspects of the ways and means motion, for the Minister to offer some assurances about the proceedings in Committee. Over the years we have become used to consideration in Committee being meaningless, save for one or two exceptions in the form of significant and principal Bills in recent Sessions. Consideration in Committee has become a ritual. The argumentation is supplied by either side and one or two minority parties chip in occasionally.
Nothing else happens. Divisions are of no significance, as the Government always win because of the Committee's composition. I am old-fashioned and naive, perhaps. I thought that, occasionally, a Government would accept genuine and improving amendments when it became clear that it was important that certain changes should be made. Surely there should be intellectual adjustments in Committee when there has been serious reconsideration. That does not mean that the Government would be surrendering the commanding heights of their favourite proposals for the greater development of the market economy, and surely broadcasting must be an example par excellence where such changes could be made on that basis in Committee.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has already told the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), with enthusiasm, that he will welcome genuine discussions, and perhaps even some changes, in Committee. We are used to Ministers saying that sort of thing at this stage. When the Bill goes into Committee, however, the old ritual starts again. The Government Whips say that nothing must be changed, because all Conservative Members voted for the Bill on Second Reading. In effect, they say, "This is just going through the motions. We must get the Bill through Committee as

quickly as possible." Most of the hon. Members who are supporting the Government get on with their correspondence and pay little attention to the debates. That is the reality of Committee proceedings nowadays.
Perhaps this debate is being televised. I doubt it, because those who are responsible for the cameras tend to go home now. I think, however, that it would be a good idea if the public knew rather more about these matters. It would be interesting if the proceedings of the Committee that considers the Bill were televised. I think that only two Select Committees have been televised so far. The Public Accounts Committee was televised once or twice, and I think one other Committee during this Session. If those who are responsible for the broadcasting contract in the House read my words, perhaps they will consider that the Committee that considers this Bill would provide excellent television. That would enable the public to take a closer interest in the Bill and hon. Members would not necessarily feel obliged to read their letters and to undertake their correspondence.
If anyone thinks that I am criticising my colleagues, far from it. Hon. Members are overworked and they have to do their correspondence in Committee. They receive so many letters and there are only a certain number of hours in the day. They do not have time to be in Committee for long hours and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long way from the ways and means motion.

Mr. Dykes: I shall return immediately to the theme of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the way in which hon. Members do their work, and it flows over into the Committee stage.
With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), I think that he misunderstands the notion and definition of quality. He meant the subjective pleasure, or lack of it, which any viewer can get from different types of programmes, depending on his cultural propensities—and I know that my hon. Friend has many, as do other hon. Members. Others were thinking more of the element that is included in the financial considerations for the potential new franchisee, which is a definition of quality that should be decided and implemented at that stage, not at a previous stage when there is some uneasy definition of a Becher's brook threshold of quality, well before the actual financial application in a sealed envelope is made.
I hope that my hon. Friend now understands the important difference between those points. I think that others have also misunderstood. Again, it denies us the opportunity to hark back to what has been best in the British combination of television. With all due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), with his great knowledge of the United States, and therefore also of American television, the general opinion of most well educated Americans to whom I have spoken, and many Americans who have travelled to other countries and are, in a sense, the man and woman in the street, is that by and large they have Mickey Mouse television. Advertisements take 15 or 16 minutes of every hour, which is double what is allowed under United Kingdom regulations. The advertisements, unlike those on British television, are not witty, amusing and self-effacing in promoting the sale of products, but just monotonous slogan advertisements.
My hon. Friend—with justification, in view of the argument that he deployed—quoted a number of more esoteric public interest programmes. They certainly exist in the USA, often subsidised and subvented by the state governments. The CNN international news network is a great success, but my hon. Friend and I know what happens when we flit between the 30 channels on the New York service. The minority channels might strike us as better because they are in a foreign language, but they are usually the same programmes—the quiz shows, the soaps, the rubbish and the cartoons. That is the fate of American television. We are going down that path with these proposals.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: I do not think so, as my hon. Friend was not here for most of our debates.
That is the danger that we face with these proposals, unless there are central alterations to what my hon. and learned Friend enunciated earlier of just sticking to the financial tender system.
There are many aspects to which, if there were time, I would refer, but it would be out of order. Hon. Members should hesitate before approving this motion. I understand that this debate has no time limit, so they should oblige the House to think profoundly about the dangers before voting on the motion.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I shall be brief. At the end of a day's debate on this subject, I am almost astounded at the way in which the House seems to have been gripped with some sort of fervour of unreality. Many of the speeches have been over the top. If we look back on this debate in 10 years' time, some may be somewhat ashamed of the Armageddon pictures that they have painted.
All my family, apart from me, have made their livelihoods in television. Many of the programmes that they made were successful, and many of them were forgettable. It is remarkable that most hon. Members' memories today have been selective. They have remembered the good programmes and called them "quality", but they have forgotten the bad programmes. It is almost as though the bad programmes never existed—as though the programmes on every channel which died the death, often after hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds worth of development, have been entirely forgotten.
Many right hon. and hon. Members also seem to forget that speeches of the kind heard today were made on the introduction of the IBA, BBC 2, and Channel 4. Today we are merely helping the process of developing a fifth channel of terrestrial television, and thereby broadening the broadcasting base, by using a technology which already exists. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) stated specifically that the Broadcasting Bill is leading us down the road to cartoons, soaps and quizzes. How can he take such a view when we are clearly already in the era of cartoons, soaps and quizzes? We are also already in the era of vast choice in broadcasting, and an extra channel will make no difference.
The terms of the ways and means motion are similar in many respects to the existing system. The Government are not tearing up the existing system but leaving in place the majority of its provisions and maintaining its funding for the foreseeable future. I ask the House to consider whether allowing extra choice means going down the path towards total destruction of our children's lives. Is there really any truth in Miss Biddy Baxter's claim that children's television programmes will hardly be able to be made once the Broadcasting Bill becomes law? There will always be dedicated broadcasters producing children's programmes and every other type of programme. Many of those programmes will "pay", and many will not. Happily, however, there will be a broad range of channels, some of which will "pay" and some of which will provide a public broadcasting service.
A sad aspect of today's debate has been the way in which quality has largely been dictated by those who already make television programmes—almost as though people currently unable to do so have no understanding of what quality means. Nor has it been mentioned that the existing structure allows certain individuals working for the BBC to receive salaries as high as £350,000 or £400,000 per year from public funds. If more channels mean that competition among broadcasters is lessened, so that the price paid for them is lowered, I for one shall welcome that.
I find it somewhat obscene for a broadcaster to criticise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for paying judges and generals £70,000 per year from public funds when other people are unemployed while the broadcaster himself is receiving a salary of four or five times that amount from public funds. There is a great deal of hypocrisy, cant, needless fear and exaggeration—and many speeches which will not mean very much in the long run, thanks to the programmes that will continue to be made by our excellent established broadcasters and by others new to the profession.
As for Sky Television, I defy anyone to watch Sky News and to argue convincingly that it is biased one way or the other. I must declare an interest in that my sister occasionally presents a programme on Sky Television, but I am sorry to say that I have not watched it—only because it is not the kind of programme that I usually watch. My preference is for news and sport, and Sky's news and sports channels are excellent. If they are examples of the "degradation" that television will suffer, right hon. and hon. Members must have their interpretation utterly wrong.
I will raise one sticking point with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. The extra choice in radio will be welcomed by many minority and regional groups and by other dedicated interests throughout the country. However, although I support the Bill, the quality threshold must be examined in Committee. For me, the sticking point will be that, if ball-by-ball test match commentaries are no longer broadcast on the radio, I may change my mind about the Bill.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) declared an interest in television production, but I think that he understands that most right hon. and hon. Members represent the interests of the viewers.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I said that most of my family are involved in television production, but that I am simply a viewer.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that clarification, and, as a viewer, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in my remarks and in the questions that I shall put to the Minister.
This debate is something of a curiosity. We are used to money resolutions by which the House authorises money to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to implement the purposes of a Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) quite properly specialises in drawing the House's attention to that. However, we are now discussing a Ways and Means resolution, and that is the opposite, as it is concerned with raising money.
For example, the Chancellor's Budget is concerned with the ways and means of raising revenue. A ways and means resolution is unusual in a Bill because it means—the Government have made no secret of it, although it has not been a major feature of the debate so far—that they expect to get revenue for the Consolidated Fund as a result.
Paragraph (4), the final paragraph, of the ways and means resolution refers to
provisions requiring the payment of any other sums into the Consolidated Fund.
The ways and means resolution makes provision for money to be so raised for payment to the ancillary bodies—the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, Channel Four Television Corporation and the new radio authority. The Government clearly envisage a substantial payment into the Consolidated Fund, and the Home Secretary said as much, in an aside, when he opened the Second Reading debate. He said that the Bill was designed to get as much money from television as possible to pay into the Consolidated Fund, and he stated that as if it were a virtue.
Colleagues in the Chamber now may remember that I challenged the Home Secretary, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), about how much it would amount to per person per week in taxation. The individual amount is small, but the income to the Consolidated Fund is not known.
What sort of sums does the Minister expect to raise each year from what must be seen as a tax on television? Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but at the moment television costs in Britain are paid by the licence fee, which funds the BBC, and by advertising revenue. As I understand it, the Bill maintains the BBC, which individual licence holders pay for, but reverses the flow of money in to the Exchequer, because as a result of advertising, the Exchequer will take its cut.
Clause 114(1) makes it plain that,
Where the Authority receive in respect of any licence any of the amounts specified in subsection (2), that amount shall not form part of the revenues of the Authority but shall
be paid into the Exchequer. In other words, the authority deducts what it costs to keep itself going, and pays the surplus into the Exchequer.
Clause 114 refers us to two other clauses—the Bill is complicated—one of which, clause 96(1), refers us to clause 80(1)(c) in respect of fees. A money collection mechanism is hidden in the Bill. It is not written clearly on the face of it, but is done by reference to previous clauses.
Clause 110 is about the cash bids that will be put in to obtain a franchise. As I read it, clause 110 provides that

that money also will go to the Exchequer. We have here a system of television taxation. It is hidden. It is not clearly on the face of the Bill, but it is an integral part of it. I invite the Minister, when he replies to the debate on this important motion, to tell me whether I have got it wrong. If I have not, we are imposing a tax on broadcasting analogous to a tax on newspapers or books. If the Minister would like to tell me now that I have misread the Bill, I shall be pleased to give way to him. If he does not, I can only assume that I am correct.
So far, this matter has not received the attention it deserves. If we pass the motion, we are surely agreeing in principle that the Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister, some political adviser or the Government communications publicity manager should specify what sums should be paid over. We are taking out of the common ether, which is surely public property, a system of hidden taxation which means that the taxes can ultimately be paid for only by advertising revenue.

Mr. Hanley: Could revenue not also come from the sale of products and other merchandise?

Mr. Spearing: I understand that the television authority which the Bill envisages is not a marketing concern. It is a marketing concern only in respect of awarding licences for transmission. I am not aware of its being involved in the production or sale of articles or anything else. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it has such authority and wishes to correct me, I shall gladly give way again. If it has such authority, I suspect that it is in respect of transmission stations, electrical equipment or something ancillary to its main function. It is unlikely that substantial revenue is involved.
Clause 157 was mentioned briefly on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook properly said that it would be possible for one of the satellite stations which is not covered by the monopoly 20 per cent. limitations to put in a bid for one of the listed national events. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a bid from being successful. Clause 157(1) provides:
The Independent Television Commission shall do all that they can to secure that any programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a listed event shall not be included on pay-per-view terms in any service provided by the holder of a licence granted by the Commission under Part I of this Act.
I emphasise the words
shall do all that they can".
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary himself made it quite clear that the ITC does not have the power to stop it. So the phrase "do all that they can" is uncharacteristic of any Bill that I have seen, because it does not provide the powers to prohibit.
Will the Minister of State kindly give me his attention? He has had plenty of time to consult on these matters before tonight. Is it not a fact that the proprietor of any satellite station, but in particular Sky Television, which is not covered by the 20 per cent. rule, could make a bid for the cup final or any other major sporting event—the cup final probably commands the greatest potential viewership—and pay a substantial sum? Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that sum goes to the Independent Television Commission or straight to the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook described that sum as a loss leader, but he did not go on to say why it might be a loss leader.
Although I am not well informed about technology, I understand that one needs a bowl to receive those television stations, particularly Sky. Therefore, some capital investment is required. At present, that station faces the difficulty that its viewership is limited and there are not all that many bowls around, although the number is probably increasing. If the proprietor of Sky Television or any other station—I am not singling out Sky, although it has different status under the Bill—goes to the Football Association and puts in a massive bid for several million pounds which tops any bid from any public corporation, that station would get exclusive rights.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said that he would not like choice to be restricted, but if such a station won, he would not be able to choose to watch the cup final on a BBC or existing ITV channel. He would have to buy a bowl or use some other subscription service.
There would be great encouragement for people to invest in one of those bowls. I am old enough to remember how people saved up to invest in televisions so that they could see the coronation. People would invest in satellite bowls so that they could see the cup final and they would say, "It is a lot of money just to watch the cup final, but it will give us viewing afterwards." That would be to the considerable advantage of whichever contractor won, because people would get the bowls, and the potential viewership of that contractor would immediately shoot straight up.
That is the possible effect of clause 157 as drafted. Of course, that has revenue implications, because, under the mechanism which I have just mentioned, the Exchequer would be able to get more money out of that contractor via the Independent Television Commission.
I shall conclude by reiterating the two points that I have raised. First, it appears that the Bill contains a means of hidden taxation on the British people via the television system of the future. It means that Her Majesty's Government can assess the Independent Television Commission, the viewers and the sellers of merchandise for an unspecified amount. Inevitably that will have a secondary effect on quality, as the mass of merchandise and viewership will be in a better position to pay such taxation.
Secondly, by not providing powers to limit the listed events to the existing public television services, the Bill could give a shot in the arm to any satellite broadcaster who wishes to invest in a loss leader. I invite the Minister of State, in his reply to this important debate, to correct me if I am wrong in either of those broad assertions, as I believe them to be true. I challenge the Minister to tell me whether they are true. If they are, the Bill contains something far worse than has been recognised so far tonight, and there have already been enough speeches on those lines.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I do not wish to detain the House, but I want to make a few remarks on the ways and means resolution.
Having listened to the speeches, I support the Bill because the general impression that I have from all the wise pontificating is that the Bill will not make much

difference to broadcasting standards. It might make them a bit better or a bit worse, but I think that it is unwise for anyone to reach any conclusions about that and, by and large, I think that it is a more sensible business arrangement.
I wish to ask the Minister a question, and I hope that he will think carefully about it. Under the resolution, much cash will be given to the Consolidated Fund and to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Is there any way in which it might be used to deal with the greatest threat to standards in Britain—the programmes that will be launched to this country from other countries by satellites featuring soft and hard pornography and the most dreadful violence? I appreciate that that is a difficult problem. The Government have imposed minor rules, whereby, if a pornographic programme advertises Coca Cola, we can have a bash at Coca Cola in Britain, but the Minister must be aware that that is a limited control.
It is a waste of time talking for eight or 10 hours about minor changes in the standards of British broadcasting when we face a horrific and savage assault on them purely as a result of satellite activities. It is not as though they will transmit from far distant places. We know that in some European countries plans will shortly be announced to transmit soft and hard pornography. Is there anything that we can do to arrest that trend? Can we do anything through the United Nations? We know that resolutions of the Council of Europe are entirely ineffective, because some are being widely disregarded.
If the Minister cares about broadcasting standards, as every father of young children does, will he do anything to restrict or control the activities of friendly countries—some on the continent of Europe and some a bit further away—which will be sending pornographic programmes into the homes of Britain? If we care about broadcasting standards, we should regard that as a crusade and not spend hours discussing what may be marginal changes in standards arising from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Roger Gale: I should like to detain the House briefly to place on record two technical matters arising from the ways and means motion. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will not reply to them tonight but will take the opportunity to discuss them with colleagues at the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry and perhaps mention them in Committee later.
The first relates to the development of cable television. Some people have said that the installation of cable in this country has been slow. If that is so, and I believe that it is, those who served on the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 bear some responsibility, because it was they—I was one of them—who prevented foreign investment in cable in Britain. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has sought to make provision in the Bill to rectify that, and I hope and believe that investment will be encouraged and that the development of cable will be swift.
In the motion and in the Bill there is the possibility of a levy on cable. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider with his colleagues whether that might be a disincentive to investment and whether it is wise.
My second point relates to the Consolidated Fund provision. Money will go not only into the Consolidated Fund but from it, and through the Department of Trade


and Industry, into the Eureka project and the development of high-definition television. It has become apparent during that programme that HD television has been and is being overtaken by the development of digital television transmission. It is technically possible to transmit enhanced definition television that is receivable by sets currently owned by the British public. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to discuss with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry the possibility of withdrawing from that element of the Eureka programme and pursuing as swiftly as possible the introduction of enhanced definition television and the development of a British digital television industry.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): In deference to those who have spoken, I shall respond briefly, but in deference also to those who did not expect that the debate would last for so long after Second Reading, I shall keep my remarks brief. There will be a long Committee stage for those who wish to deal with these matters in greater detail, as perforce I shall have to do.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is a great expert on statutory instruments. Indeed, he chairs the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I enjoyed his remarks about the powers of secondary legislation under the Bill. A constant dilemma of legislation is that, wherever possible, one wants to avoid secondary legislation that involves loss of parliamentary control. Equally, if some elements of the regulatory regime were included in the Bill, there would be the danger of setting in concrete on the face of the legislation matters of regulation that might with advantage require changing as circumstances change.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the adequacy or otherwise of parliamentary scrutiny. I have served on Standing Committees with the hon. Gentleman, who knows that I am always prepared to take seriously any suggestions about adding in parliamentary scrutiny to proposals for delegated legislation and I shall consider the Bill in Committee in that light, and with great room for those points.
Like the hon. Member for Newham, South, (Mr. Spearing) and others, the hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned the financial arrangements. With respect to the hon. Member for Newham, South, there was nothing novel in the proposition that the Government take a significant sum—it will be about £150 million this year—by way of a levy or tax from the ITV companies. Labour Governments did that—there is nothing new about it. Indeed, it would be novel if Governments were not prepared to do that, because the grant of a franchise is the grant of a monopoly or near-monopoly of selling television advertising, which is an extremely valuable boon. The late Lord Thomson of Fleet was rash enough to describe it as a licence to print money—something about which proprietors of other ITV franchises have always been rather embarrassed—but as so often with a pithy phrase, it conveys an essential truth. Governments have always thought it right that, for the benefit of the taxpayer, they should have a share of that money.
The difficulty is in determining how the share should be assessed. Governments have had different stabs at it—for example, using profit and net advertising revenue, or NAR

as it is inelegantly known, or some combination of the two. All that we are proposing is that it should be a dual figure, comprising the lump sum in the tender that is made to those who cross the quality threshold and a sum of money representing a proportion of advertising revenue that will be fixed by the ITC. As has been said, clause 156 does that.
On the point about major sporting events, I do not think that I can do better than simply to repeat the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). At the moment, Sky or any other satellite channel could bid for one of the major sporting events and the only right that the present law gives to the BBC and ITV is the right to match that bid. Thus far, no such bid has been made.
I confidently expect and believe that major sporting events will continue to be seen on the main channels. That will come about, first, because it is profoundly unlikely that satellite television could mount the sort of bid necessary to secure such coverage. Secondly, as a number of sporting bodies have made clear, they are interested in the projection of their sport into as many households as possible. They are not interested in restricting access to their sport, and their sponsors are certainly not interested in anything other than the programme being shown in a large number of homes.
I am not sure how much more we can debate the matter at this point, because it comes down to a simple issue. Because we are afraid of the effects on public opinion of the scare campaign that we shall not see the FA cup, are we to perpetuate the system whereby, in effect, the state intervenes to prevent the proprietors of large sporting events from selling their product as they see fit, or are we to rely on the common sense, on the reality, that it is unlikely that large sums of money will be made available by others? That could have happened under the present arrangements. Proprietors of major sporting events have the same interest as the rest of us. They want their sport to be seen widely.

Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that the Minister is worried about the time that the House is taking on these fundamentally important matters. Some of us are elected here as a Parliament, not a charade.
I take it from what the Minister said about sport that nothing that I suggested is impossible. I am grateful to him for his explanation about taxation. In Committee, does he envisage putting a limitation on returns such as the Consolidated Fund which are consistent with the returns that he alleges have been made under certain Governments since the foundation of the IBA?

Mr. Mellor: I will do the hon. Gentleman the honour of considering that point, but I shall not give a detailed response now. I assure him that I do not consider that I am taking part in a charade. I confidently expect to spend many hours on the detailed consideration of the Bill. I am not sure that we should conduct a Committee stage at 12.10 am on the night of Second Reading. That is a fair point and, having sat here for eight hours, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware that I am not participating in a charade.
It has saddened me enormously to find myself, for the first time since he became an hon. Member, on the other side of a debate from my hon. Friend the Member for


Buckingham (Mr. Walden). Clearly, he feels deeply about the matter and that is why he spoke in the terms that he did.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was fully entitled to say that Lord Reith likened the introduction of commercial television to the introduction of bubonic plague. That is an uncomfortable fact but nonetheless true. All the major changes in broadcasting since the war have come about because people were prepared to ride on in the face of tarted-up worst-case scenarios, which were claimed by critics to be the natural and inevitable consequence of what was proposed. Although that point is not a complete answer to any proposal, it is well worth making. We are faced with similar allegations today.
I should have thought that it was to the Government's credit that BBC1, BBC2 and Channel 4 will remain the same. My hon. Friend was perhaps caught in a downward spiral of logic when looking for a reason to damn the Government's proposals on the BBC. He said that the BBC would be dragged down by what was happening to Channel 3.I do not accept that anything detrimental will happen to Channel 3. The BBC has a secure income from the public, which has no choice about paying and has to pay ever-increasing sums. The BBC, properly, also has a large income from its commercial activities. The idea that it will be dragged down is well wide of the mark. It has a public service remit. It is not much of a compliment to the BBC to suggest that it would be dragged down.
The key point that my hon. Friend must understand is that Channel 3 is not such a monument to our civilisation that it cannot be improved. Whether or not he or others think that it is a monument, it is clear that increasing numbers of British people do not. Its audience share has fallen in absolute terms on every indicator. The key message is that there is a great deal of room to improve Channel 3. That will come about first because the quality threshold is a genuinely serious severe hurdle for people to surmount. Secondly, for the first time, the ITC will have powers to regulate the system rather than just having an ultimate power which, because it is ultimate, is never used to remove a franchise.
The ITC will now have the power to hold people to account and to look at a group's plans to see whether it is

capable of sustaining the big promises that are made. I believe that that represents a far more sophisticated power, and it will give us a better Channel 3.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend does not see the glaring defects, as I do, in the present arrangements. When Southern Television was replaced by TVS, three or four groups sat in different hotel rooms. They were told from the cloistered meeting rooms of the IBA that X had got it, not A, B or C. We knew not why. Once we have a more open process, with a quality threshold and the possibility of people making a commercial bid, we shall have the openness and accountability that is presently missing. I know that my hon. Friend disagrees, but it is not worthy of some of the extraordinary adjectives that he employed. I am sorry about that because it pains me as I deeply approve of my hon. Friend's stand on many issues.
I hope that I have not outstayed my welcome. I hope that the House will accept the way and means motion and will wish the Bill on its way to the undoubted scrutiny that it will rightly receive in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the inclusion of—

(1) provisions under or by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act by the Independent Television Commission established under the Act are or may be required—

(a) to pay or forfeit sums to that body in connection with such licences;
(b) to pay sums to that body as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission; and
(c) to make payments to the Channel Four Television Corporation established under the Act;

and provision for sums falling within sub-paragraph (a) or (b) to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;
(2) provisions under or by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act by the Radio Authority established under the Act are or may be required—

(a) to pay or forfeit sums to that body in connection with such licences; and
(b) to pay sums to that body as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission;

and provision for such sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;
(3) provisions under which the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of the Act) are required to pay sums as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and provision for such sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;
(4) provisions requiring the payment of any other sums into the Consolidated Fund.

Package Travel

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5382/88 and 7996/89 relating to package travel; and endorses the Government view that any proposal must strike a balance between consumer protection and the need to avoid undue burdens on the travel industry, which would adversely affect the price and range of holidays available to consumers.
Next to the home and the car, the family holiday must rank as one of the most important items of expenditure in the average British household budget. As might be expected with an island nation, a large proportion of holidays are taken abroad, and during 1988 some 13 million overseas package holidays were taken. This makes the United Kingdom one of the largest exporters of holidaymakers in the Community, and it is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of this sector.
The sheer popularity of the package holiday is a tribute to the success of the package travel industry and to the excellent value for money which the large majority of holidays sold represent. It is possible for consumers in this country to find packages to just about every conceivable destination and, increasingly, covering just about every conceivable activity, As has been highlighted by the European consumer body, Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs, the United Kingdom package tour operator is able to market a much less costly package holiday than his Community counterparts—comparable packages can work out up to 30 per cent. cheaper. We have been concerned, therefore, to give very careful consideration to the proposals emanating from Brussels for a directive in this area.
The consumer is particularly vulnerable when he books an overseas holiday, pays in advance for the service and then has a substantial part of it performed overseas. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between some clarification and strengthening of the consumer's rights and increasing prices to the point at which ordinary people can no longer afford them.
The Government have held that the consumer is entitled to expect that the tour operator will provide him with precisely the holiday that he booked and not an approximation to it. He should get the hotel that he chose from the brochure and not one up the road. He is entitled to expect that he will pay the price quoted in the brochure and not be surcharged unless it is made crystal clear to him at the outset that surcharges may be made and in what circumstances. He is also entitled to expect the services comprising the package to be performed to a reasonable standard. In extreme and, I hope, very rare circumstances, the deficiencies in services may lead to death or personal injury. Damages are potentialy very high and the extent of the tour operator's liability is important.
The consumer will not be best served if, in providing him with increased protection, the tour operator is forced to increase prices beyond the consumer's reach or to forgo inclusion of certain holiday destinations or holiday activities. Nor are consumers well served if newcomers are discouraged from entering the market. The Government

have been equally concerned, therefore, that any increased liability imposed on the tour operator should be equitable and insurable.
That brings me to the array of proposals which have come out of Brussels and on which we have tried to keep the House informed. I should like to bring the House up to date on what has been happening.
Recent discussions have centred on a proposal under development by the current French presidency, which it hopes will form the basis of a compromise for adoption by the Commission. The presidency is to be congratulated on its strenuous efforts to pull this more balanced proposal together, even at this late stage of negotiation. I warmly praise the work of officials at the Department of Trade and Industry who have borne the brunt of the negotiations. They have done a magnificent job to represent the views of the Government, the consumer and the industry in some difficult and complex negotiations. During those negotiations, the Government have been mindful of concerns which fall broadly under three headings.
With regard to the scope of the proposal—article 2—we believe, first and foremost, that the directive ought to be confined to tour operators and their direct competitors. That statement requires some elaboration. To apply widely the stringent provisions envisaged would mean the severe limitation, if not the complete demise, of activities such as day trips to an event or activity and the rental of holiday cottages with ancillary services such as fishing rights. In that respect, the effects on small enterprises could be catastrophic. It would also mean that the likes of schools, clubs and churches would have to think carefully about continuing with traditional outings and holidays. One also has to question the wisdom of embracing ad hoc business travel arrangements in a directive intended to apply primarily to package holidays. We shall continue to negotiate with those principles in mind.
The presidency proposal is therefore a step in the right direction—

Mr. Conal Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on this important point. Will he tell the House why he would resist the safeguard for those who go away on a trip for 24 hours, whether they be members of Church parties, political parties, or others? They need that fundamental protection and it seems inexplicable not to give it to them. Why is the Minister seeking to remove it?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend touches on a difficult point, on which neither the Council of Ministers nor I have totally made up our minds. Either one forces the full protection of this directive on anyone who, in any circumstances, arranges a trip of any kind, and there is something to be said for doing that, or one recognises that a wide range of innocent, one-off, non-profit-making activities could be brought to an end if we forced on them the full rigours of the directive. It is a finely balanced argument on which we wish to await the exact proposals of the Council of Ministers before making up our minds. However, I am mindful of the difficult choice which must be faced.
The presidency proposal is a step in the right direction in that it seeks to omit from the definition trips lasting less than 24 hours. We believe that this will take day trips such as a coach trip to the zoo out of the scope of the directive. We also welcome the stipulation that, for an additional


service to count towards the definition of a "package", it should not be ancillary to transport or accommodation and should be significant in relation to the contract as a whole.
With regard to the liability of the package organiser—article 5—the liability provisions lie at the heart of the proposals for a directive on package travel. The Government believe that an acceptable proposal would need to strike a fair balance between the interests of the parties, be insurable at acceptable cost and not reduce the range of holidays available. We accept that the organiser should be strictly liable for the provision of the services agreed, but where consequential damages, death or personal injury are concerned, the extent of liability should be limited in some way. I submit that the vast majority of consumer concerns about their package holidays have to do with just that principle, and I have a steady flow of correspondence on which to base that conclusion.
The presidency proposal is also a great step forward on that central issue. It proposes liability for proper performance of the contract, including non-performance due to faults of suppliers such as hoteliers and carriers. We hope, however, that the final proposal will include defences for contributory negligence, acts of third parties and unforeseeable events which could not be forestalled. In our view, inclusion of contractual limitations set by international conventions is fundamental.
As for the financial guarantees—article 7—if the liability provisions lie at the heart of the proposals on package travel, to continue the visceral analogy, those on financial guarantee must be the guts of it. The Government believe that the essence of a workable provision must relate to a free and informed choice, not only for consumers, who must be able to see by what means the organiser intends to cover his liabilities if things go wrong, but for organisers, who must be free to make the most appropriate and cost-effective arrangements. To introduce compulsory licensing of all organisers within the scope of the directive would mean excessively bureaucratic and expensive intervention by the state.
Compulsory insurance for every claim which might arise is also unreasonable and ignores the plight of very small enterprises or new companies in the sector without a track record to enable them to get insurance at economical cost. This would do no favours to consumers because, inevitably, it would drive up prices unnecessarily and reduce competition. Most packages in the United Kingdom are sold through organisers who are fully bonded against insolvency and there might be a case to require others to make arrangements which would provide protection for consumers in those circumstances. We would welcome a proposal which would underpin that approach but allow organisers flexibility to make appropriate arrangements.
At the outset, the Government placed reservations on the proposals for a directive on package travel, not only on the general content of the Commission's proposal but also on the chosen treaty base, article 100A. That is the base which was established by the Single European Act and is designed to facilitate the rapid achievement of the single market. We have been sceptical about whether there is a strong case for choosing that treaty base for this proposal, which struck us as very much a measure for the protection

of consumers. On the other hand, however, package travel is a highly specialised area for a number of reasons, and in the light of the final compromise proposal and whatever justification is put forward in the recitals for a Community measure in this area, we may reach a different view.
The reasoning in favour of a balanced set of proposals which take due account of the needs and wishes of both parties must be self-evident to everyone. I invite the House to agree with the motion.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This directive is, in a number of areas, a pale shadow of the original draft and it offers only limited protection for holidaymakers. I do not recognise the rosy picture that the Minister has just painted, and nor do hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers who annually run the gauntlet of surcharges, airport delays, overbookings, dangerous facilities, switched destinations and unsuitable accommodation.
I welcome the efforts of the travel industry to ensure that more than 10 million people enjoy package holidays every year, but I also share the concern of the I million holidaymakers whose holidays have given cause for complaint.
The Minister has never made a secret of his desire to ensure that the directive gives less protection to the tourist than to the tourist trade. It comes as no surprise that the Government cannot welcome unreservedly even the modest package of measures to protect the travelling public that this directive offers.
Sadly, when the Commission suggested measures to protect holidaymakers, the Government lobbied to weaken the proposals, not to strengthen them. This directive allows people's holidays to be cancelled up to 24 hours before departure. It now offers no protection to the person crossing the Channel for a day trip—the first draft did. It sanctions bigger surcharges on the consumer than did the original, and provides no right to written reasons for surcharges. It burdens the consumer who has suffered with the need to prove negligence in some areas. It removes the requirement for brochures to detail contract conditions and for local tourist authorities to assist in resolving disputes.
There are some safeguards, which the Minister quaintly describes as burdens on the trade, but we want to know from the Consumer Minister about the burdens on the consumer—the burden of buying a holiday paid for in advance, with no guarantee of specific accommodation or even price. I am told that, when things go wrong on a package holiday, it is difficult to find anyone to take responsibility.
In six key areas, this directive is defective and far weaker than its original draft. The 1 million holidaymakers whose holidays were spoilt last year are entitled to know why a directive that offered them so much better provision has been watered down.
The Government have never made a secret of their concerns, not for the travelling public but for the travel trade. On 22 April, the Minister's predecessor spelled out his key fears in a letter. He said:
Another important implication of the directive from the tour operators' point of view is that it may circumscribe their present abilities to restrict their liabilities when a third party (eg, a foreign hotelier) fails to provide the service contracted.


By 22 August we had a new Minister, whose comments on this directive to protect holidaymakers were even more hostile. He wrote that his Department
considers that the proposal … is unnecessarily burdensome and fails to strike a fair balance between consumer and supplier interest.
I note that the Minister nods in assent. That was followed by three months of the most disgraceful lobbying by the Minister to weaken the directive. By 8 December the Minister had failed the consumer. He was able to write that the proposal
has moved towards a more acceptable balance between consumer and supplier interests.
He has used similar words tonight.
The changes in the proposals were severely criticised by consumer groups. The European Union of Consumers deplored what it called
sabotage on behalf of government experts".
It spoke of
compromises which are less and less favourable to consumers.
With more and more people going abroad, the need for consumer protection has never been greater.
My attention has been drawn to the plight of Mr. Clement, who booked a five-person apartment in Corfu. The total trip cost over £1,300 but the apartment was already occupied when he arrived. When he eventually got in there was room for only four beds, the kitchen was filthy, the shower was broken and when the toilet was flushed waste came up through a grille in the bathroom floor. The company representative was unhelpful and when he asked for compensation Cosmos offered nothing. He wrote again and was offered £50. He eventually had to resort to a court summons to receive a higher amount. He needed on-the-spot help from independent local tourist authorities to ensure that his holiday was satisfactory in the first place.
Under the directive, tour companies can still limit their liability to supply the holiday as booked and paid for. It appears that one can spend £400 on a holiday and the blame for failure can be shifted to some foreign supplier, often with impunity. The seller of a £400 television cannot legally tell the purchaser to seek redress in Japan or West Germany. In that respect, perhaps the travel trade is getting off lightly.
A holiday is bought on trust and paid for in advance, yet is subject to changes that may appear arbitrary and without a guarantee that the item supplied is the item that was purchased. The Minister should investigate whether practices such as surcharges and combining holidays when there are not enough bookings should be permitted unless they are advertised as such. He should spell out what redress is available to tourists at the holiday location.
In May, the Consumers Association carried out a study on travel agents. It asked a number of them for the cheapest flight to Europe and four out of five got it wrong. The Which? verdict was "appalling". The association asked for a holiday on an island suitable for an elderly grandmother and only two out of 36 got it right. The Consumers Association concluded that most agents were poorly informed.
The Minister recently gave his verdict on the travel industry. In a long-distance video presentation to a world conference in Mexico on the travel trade, he said:
The industry has set itself a standard which is going to be very difficult to maintain.

To hear the Minister one would think that this country has the highest standards, the best public protection and the lowest levels of consumer dissatisfaction. That is simply not the case. A survey of package travellers by the European Commission shows that while 27 holidaymakers in every 100 interviewed in Italy experienced problems with their package holiday, the figure for Britain was 37 in every 100. Those surveyed in France and Germany had lower dissatisfaction ratings, of 31 and 32 respectively. The Commission revealed a serious crisis of confidence in the British travel industry.
That fewer than 5 per cent. of people pursue their complaint raises a major question about the current complaints procedure. The Commission stated:
The reason … is that the consumer, having paid the price in full before departing on his holiday feels that by making a formal complaint he may well find himself involved in an endless argument which if it has to be terminated in a courtroom may cost him more money than he can afford.
Article 6 in its original form would have helped to tackle that problem.
I pay tribute to the work of the Association of British Travel Agents to try to monitor and improve standards. The revised ABTA code of conduct will give welcome protection to its consumers after November 1990, especially against negligence resulting in injury or death, and it makes provision for higher compensation in the event of a holiday being cancelled or altered. There is still scope for the trade to substitute holidays on a massive scale. Holidaymakers can still get a holiday in a hotel different from the one that they booked, and cannot cancel the holiday if the hotel is in the same category in price. Holidaymakers may still be forced to accept changes, such as the absence of advertised child care, because these are not seen as material alterations.
Welcome though the codes of conduct are, powerful trade regulations and sanctions are no substitute for Government-led consumer protection. Only last year, the Director General of Fair Trading had to step in an warn ABTA that holidaymakers were being surcharged for fuel price increases when world fuel prices were falling. In spite of the Minister's much-loved codes, supposedly prohibiting this unjustified type of surcharge, it went ahead. In his latest report, the director general, Sir Gordon Borrie, says:
Examples of costing subsequently submitted by ABTA failed to convince the Office that unjustified surcharging had not taken place.
Before this revised directive, surcharges of under 10 per cent. of the cost of the holiday were to be absorbed by the tour operator, and the reasons for surcharging were then to be set out in writing. Now, there are virtually no limitations on surcharging.
We have no specific legislation that exclusively protects the holidaymaker. Despite the enormous scale of our holiday industry, the United Kingdom lags behind several other European states in establishing specific legislation on the holiday trade. Other countries have specific laws that define the rights of the consumer and the obligations of tour operators. France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain all have such laws. In this country, the operators do not require a licence from the Government. The only licensing of any part of the trade is carried out not by the Government but by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Some countries have laws to protect the travelling public. In some—Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain—those laws are backed with licensing of all travel companies. The laws exist not because the consumers there


have more need of them than we do. France and Italy, which featured so much more favourably in the Commission's study than the United Kingdom, also have laws and licensing. They have laws because their Governments aspire to give holidaymakers greater protection than ours will give.
Although ABTA covers 90 per cent. of the holiday trade, that still leaves more than 1 million holidaymakers with minimal protection. In his video from Acapulco, the Minister made it clear that he has no plans to force travel companies to abide by ABTA's new code of practice, but the need for protection has never been greater. That number of 1 million holidaymakers with complaints is growing, not shrinking. Standards are not improving, they are declining.
The Consumers Association published its survey on holidays in January. A fifth of holidaymakers reported that the tour operators made a change in their holiday arrangements, and half those changes were made during the actual holiday or within a fortnight from departure. Two thirds had their flight time changed, and for nearly one third, the resort itself or the accommodation was changed. The survey found that most holidaymakers were perfectly happy with their tour operator, but it also reported a significant drop in people's rating of tour operators since the last survey in 1986, with 9 per cent. expressing clear dissatisfaction with the operator, as against 7 per cent. two years previously. Sadly, when the Commission suggested measures to protect holidaymakers, such as an arbitration service by local tourist officers, the Minister, to use the words of the Secretary of State, felt for his wallet.
This is a minimum directive. When the legislation is implemented here, the Minister should seek four safeguards for the consumer. He must consider banning surcharges. He should ensure that the holidaymaker does not have to establish negligence so as to obtain redress. He must examine the need for joint liability between the operator in the United Kingdom and the agent abroad, with the appropriate on-site advice and help. He should enshrine in legislation the standards that ABTA applies to its members where these are higher than standards in the directive, including strict liability for property damaged.
The Minister began by stating that British holiday-makers get the cheapest holidays. We know, however, that cheapest is not best and that value for money is not synonymous with cheapness. Thousands of holidaymakers believe that they are not getting value for the money that they have paid. That is because they did not receive the holiday for which they asked, not because their expectations are too high.
We do not endorse the Government's hostility to EC directives that are designed to strengthen consumer rights. Travel organisers should provide the holiday that is booked. The price at the time of booking should be the price that is finally paid. On-the-spot, independent arbitration should be considered. If an hotel is not the one advertised, there must be immediate help if the holiday is to be saved, not the right to register a complaint on return after the holiday has been ruined. To put it simply, people want the holiday that they have booked at the price that they have paid. Sadly, neither the directive nor the Government are backing the holiday consumer.

Sir Anthony Grant: I do not agree with much of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, but in this short debate, I want to refer to a specific matter and a different one from those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
First, I declare an interest in the Guild of Business Travel Agents, a body which I have had the honour to advise for many years. The guild consists of about 50 of the largest companies that specialise in business travel. The companies have a turnover of £2·8 billion and they are responsible for four out of five business flights to and from the United Kingdom.
The guild is not to be confused with ABTA, the Association of British Travel Agents, although many of the guild's members have shared membership and on many issues the guild and the association go along the same path. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to speak better than I can on behalf of the association.
Following the Single European Act, the Guild of Business Travel Agents took the initiative in an endeavour to form a European guild dealing with business travel exclusively, but the business travel agents in the United Kingdom are not happy with the directives as drafted. We are a trading nation. We depend on exports and it is essential that we manage to move our business men about the world speedily, efficiently and economically.
I noted that the Minister said that he considered the proposals as a whole unnecessarily burdensome and added that they failed to strike a fair balance between consumer and supplier interests. I think that he was probably right. Therefore, I congratulate the Minister and Europe on achieving some amendments. I say to my hon. Friend that we do not help the ordinary traveller by crucifying the agent who has to move him. There is a balance to be struck, and the Government are right to draw attention to the overburdening nature of the proposals that are before us.
Even more inappropriate is the directive on business travel itself. I was pleased when the Minister said, in emphasising the changes that would have to be considered, that the implications of including some business travel in the directive required further consideration. So they do. I do not believe that the Commission understands business travel and how the proposals will affect business travel. The basic intention of the scheme is to place liability on the tour organiser, the person who assembles two or more components of the package.
As drafted, business travel appears to be caught up in the articles. The Commission has not dealt with a number of issues—for example, it has not considered the composition of business travel and the definition of "package". Article 2 defines "package" and the commentary on the articles refers to all sorts of matters that are not relevant to business travel. It refers to travel to and from the holiday place, excursions to places of interest or pleasure, sporting holidays, school buildings and sporting equipment. All those relate to holiday traffic and are not relevant to business travel.
The Commission paid no attention to the move towards management fees. Business travel agents are increasingly operating not on a commission basis but by fees charged


to their large corporate clients. The Commission also did not deal with the fact that in business travel, the customer often specifies his choice of what he wants to do.
Nor did the Commission consider the question of incentive travel. For example, Ford or any other vast organisation may wish to have an incentive travel scheme to send its dealers or salesmen to a certain place. It will instruct a well-known business travel agent to arrange that. The business travel agent will have no direct dealings with those who are travelling; its contractual basis is with the large corporate client. In any event, most businesses that engage in business travel are already covered by insurance.
If the proposals come into force, they would inhibit proper business travel and lead to the detriment of our economy. They would increase costs, and the insurance would inevitably be passed on to the consumer. The protection of the business traveller conies not from European directives or bureaucrats in Brussels, but from the vigorous and healthy competition that already prevails in the business travel sector.
It would be quite absurd for the liability arrangement for poor Mr. and Mrs. Snooks going on their hard-earned holiday to be applied to, for example, ICI ordering flights, hotels and cars for its salesmen throughout the world. Article 5 is inappropriate and unacceptable to the business travel world. I hope that ad hoc business travel will not be included and that the Minister can give me a few words of encouragement about that. If not, when he goes to the Internal Market Council at the end of the week, I hope that he will press this case with his customary forthrightness.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I have looked long and hard for an opportunity to raise a certain matter, and I think that this debate is an appropriate time to do so. Two years ago there was a sad case of a young constituent of mine who died while away on holiday. There was a problem with the insurance cover, as that young person was not insured for death by natural causes, but only for accidental death or for any sort of accident.
The parents brought the young person home to Britain after a pathologist in the EEC country that she was visiting had carried out a post mortem. A British pathologist told me that such was the quality of that post mortem that the body was not in a fit state for him to carry out a proper examination.
I am concerned about this. Most people do not realise that when they take out additional insurance cover it does not cover death by natural causes. Quite often, when a pathologist abroad has done the post mortem, he comes up with some inconclusive reports, and it is unclear whether the death was accidental or due to natural causes. That distinction can make an enormous difference in an insurance claim or in any claim against the tour operator, who usually subcontracts the additional insurance.
I wonder whether that aspect could be taken into account. The cover that is provided and not provided could be clearly set out. With more and more elderly people going abroad for their holidays—often for two or three months at a time—it is becoming increasingly important that they be made aware that death by natural causes is often not covered by the insurance policies offered by tour operators.

Mr. Conal Gregory: The House debates this matter at a significant time. Package holidays numbered fewer than 4 million in 1977, but by last year the figure had increased to 13 million. The Office of Fair Trading, in statistics to which my hon. Friend the Minister did not refer—perhaps significantly—reveals that one in five of those package holidays resulted in complaints. I am full of praise for my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing this important EC matter before the House in advance of any final decisions being made, and he will go with our best wishes to round up the matter on 21 December under the current presidency.
I also praise the Commission for taking the initiative to protect consumers. Many right hon. and hon. Members will recall that last Monday, the European Year of Tourism received its official send-off in Strasbourg in the presence of that mystery man, the tourism Commissioner, Antonio Cardoso E Cunha. Although we have not yet seen him in the United Kingdom, we shall welcome him, if and when he comes to this House. It is jolly nice to know that the Commissioner, together with the 12 Tourism Ministers of EC member states and representatives of the six EFTA countries, was present on that occasion, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will eventually meet him and use the opportunity to praise him for attending the launch of European Tourism Year.
In that connection, I praise the European Member of Parliament for York, Edward McMillan-Scott, on being one of the leading lights in European tourism.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will recall the remarks of my noble and learned Friend Lord Broxbourne in a debate in another place on 15 December, when he quoted Laurence Stern's remark that
an English man does not travel to see English men.
I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Conservative parliamentary tourism committee, secretary of the all-party tourism committee and as a consultant to Consort Hotels, which is the largest consortium of independent hoteliers in the United Kingdom.
It is ridiculous that consumers cannot take out a contract via a travel agent that incorporates all the necessary safeguards. As my hon. Friend the Minister correctly said, after the lifetime or perhaps twice-a-lifetime purchase of a house, the next most significant purchase is a motor car, and the third—the second most regular purchase—is a holiday or package tour. However, there is great consumer dissatisfaction with them.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) made a very forthright speech, and what a change it is for the Opposition to take tourism seriously. His predecessors referred to it, quite unnecessarily, as a Mickey Mouse industry and one fit only for those who appreciated the subject. I am glad to see the change that has occurred in the Opposition's attitude, although I would still like to read a definitive statement from them on the subject.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I want to place on record the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends do not take the view that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We appreciate the employment consequences of tourism and we know that it provides a great many people with pleasure and recreation. We take tourism very seriously, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of that fact.

Mr. Gregory: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are extremely welcome. One of my wishes is to read the Labour party's statement on tourism, which has not yet been forthcoming. Perhaps I may look fonvard to receiving it in Santa's stocking..
The problems to which I refer should not be shirked. One is disability. Members of the Association of British Travel Agents in Yorkshire encountered a problem. Relatives of a young couple advised them of a wish to go on holiday, but one relative had problems with asthma, and needed ground floor accommodation. When they got to their holiday destination, that request had not been fulfilled. Perhaps the agent was not putting the information through correctly to the operator. I suspect that he was, but that it had not got through to the ground handler, and to the accommodation on time.
Changes in flights are another problem. Many couples, particularly pensioners, like to travel in the middle of the day in daylight, and will undertake a holiday only on that basis. Will the directive safeguard that, and will people get adequate compensation? I am afraid that in most cases the brochures state that compensation is payable only if there is a delay in excess of 12 hours. Pensioners may go to the airport one or two hours before their flight and can be delayed for 14 hours before they get a single penny in compensation. They are not like my right hon. and hon. Friends, who rush there 45 minutes before their flight.
Will the Minister say, "Yes, that is in the implied terms but it will not lead to greater compensation," or will we see more consumer safeguards?
Another problem is when holiday dates are changed. People who work at the Rowntrees or Terry's factories in York, or in other important factories in Britain, have specific dates for their holidays and they have agreed them with their partners. A few days before their holiday, they find that the dates are changed.
Luggage delays are another common problem. I recall the rather nice cartoon in which a gentleman goes into a travel agent, probably on Boxing day when holidays feature on television, and says that he would like to go to a destination in a sunny spot, but he is not too concerned where as long as his luggage can accompany him. When one loses one's luggage, or it is damaged, the airline compensation amounts to the staggering figure of £13·80 per kilo. Frankly, that is a paltry figure if one loses a suitcase full of clothes.
I would hate to see my hon. Friend the Minister—if he had gone to Acapulco rather than Brussels and had lost his suitcase—have to stand up in the same clothes throughout the ABTA convention, with compensation of £1180 per kilo. The figure is inadequate, and he would know that if he had attended that international conference.
Overbooking is another problem. A Yorkshire couple booked a holiday through an ABTA operator and found that the floor area of their hotel bedroom measured 7 ft by 3 ft. If either of them wished to change, the other had to leave the room or get on the bed. Is that the sort of compensation that will be covered by the directive?
There is a lack of information in brochures about such things as how many Mediterranean hotels have fire doors, or safe lifts. I could continue in that vein.
I have contacted the president of ABTA to see whether it could put the matter right. Travel agents are the experts. Did they enjoy good facilities and travel en route to their

recent convention in Acapulco, Mexico? To my surprise, I found that Mr. Ron Ellison, managing director of Square Deal Travel, said:
We do not want excuses. We want explanations. Even if just one thing went wrong, that would be one too many. We are supposed to be travel professionals.
He was commenting on some of the problems in Acapulco. Mrs. Beryl Wilcox, of Jones Travel, also an ABTA member, said:
I have enjoyed the convention but I have had problems coping with the heat. And I have just found out that my flight in the morning is not there.
I could go on with a series of complaints from ABTA members. If they cannot get it right, who can?
The Consumers Association questioned travel agents for accuracy of information and unbiased advice. It found that 83 per cent. quoted the wrong fare in answer to its request for the cheapest scheduled flight to Geneva, Paris or Brussels and that 27 gave a completely incorrect fare—in six cases it was £82 too much. The moral is that those who want independent, good and accurate information should go not to an ABTA agent but to the public library or ask around. I made inquiries about a flight at one of the travel agents in my constituency and was quoted over £250 more than by another, although the young lady had a brochure which showed a quite different price within 2 ft of her. That shows that training is at rock bottom in the trade.
There are, of course, non-ABTA agents. Some 10 per cent. of people who book package holidays do so without the safeguards of ABTA. One example involves Sunseeker Holidays, which operates from Leeds and Hull and left 700 tourists stranded abroad in September. It was not bonded or a member of ABTA. What advice would my hon. Friend the Minister give those people about how far they will be helped by the directive? I am aware that the new ABTA code is to be much wider and will include the total package. That is good. If people go on holiday to Greece and the coach does not turn up, they cannot be expected to get their solicitor to sue the Greek coach operator. The agent and the operator should take on that responsibility.
Insurance is inadequate. Under the insurance offered by most companies and by ABTA agents—the silver and gold schemes—people have to be stranded in an airport for more than 12 hours before one penny is coughed up. The message that should go out from the House tonight can be summed up in one sentence. This is marketing hype and there is not enough honesty or training. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to correct that.
We should consider the legal safeguards. There is no holiday legislation, so major regulatory control lies in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, section 1 of which provides strict liability offences for the false description of goods. For the majority of complaints about the holiday trade, however, the important provisions are in section 14, which provides offences for recklessly or knowingly making a false statement about
services, accommodation or facilities in the course of any trade or business".
The inclusion of the key words "recklessly" and "knowingly" means that, to obtain a conviction, the prosecution needs to prove an element of guilt or guilty knowledge on the part of the maker of the statement. That


compares unfavourably with the strict liability offences created in relation to goods by section 1 of the Act. I appreciate that skill and care—implied terms, in other words—are contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, but we should consider the false statement. There have been several cases to help the House in this respect.
There are two precedents to which I would like to draw attention. The first is that a false statement about a future event needs to be false when it is made. That is the case of Beckett v. Cohen in 1972. The second is that it is not reckless if events happening subsequent to the making of the statement render is false. That was the case of Sunair Holidays v. Dodd. We should consider amending the law to ensure that we introduce either holiday legislation or strict liability offences for services, with appropriate definitions under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The proposed directive goes further than the ABTA codes as it imposes on organisers a strict liability for the package.
In conclusion, will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify two points? Paragraph 3 of article 6 states
that in each of their territories there is available whether provided by public or private bodies a rapid, efficient, inexpensive and independent procedure for use by the consumer in dealing with his complaints ".
Can my hon. Friend throw some light on the identity of that rapid, efficient, inexpensive and independent person or body? Does he look favourably on the idea of a tourism ombudsman?
There is before the House an early-day motion signed by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties calling for a tourism ombudsman, drawing attention to the sad inadequacies of the Association of British Travel Agents and stressing the fact that we want the independence of a tourism ombudsman. We have one in banking and we had one in insurance. I was one of the Members of Parliament responsible for getting the building societies ombudsman on the statute book. We now need that safeguard for those who buy package holidays abroad.
Even at this late hour, we should mention those who holiday in the United Kingdom. I believe that they have better safeguards than holidaymakers anywhere. If someone who lives in the west country and sensibly chooses to take his holidays in Yorkshire, and in particular York, finds that the hotel accommodation and services are inadequate or not to the level that he has expected, he can contact the regional tourist board, and if the person or organisation is a member of that board, it can take appropriate action and provide compensation. That is a big plus.
I hope that when my hon. Friend or his representative goes to Brussels on 21 December, he will stress the fact that in Britain we take complaints very seriously and we expect our counterparts in the EC to do the same. He goes with our blessing, but with the caveat that we would like him to fight as strenuously for the consumer as he has done so ardently for the travel trade.

Mr. Richard Page: I begin by placing it on record that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Association of British Travel Agents that has been referred to once or twice during the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the courtesy and attention he has given members of the travel industry whenever they have come to see him to discuss the directive.
It is a touch difficult to talk directly about the directive because, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, it has been a moving target—and sometimes a fast moving one—which was constantly changing shape. However, it is now slowing down and starting to assume a definable profile. There has been a general welcome for the aims of the directive in the House and in the travel industry. If other countries in the EC had organisations such as those in Britain, matters would have been dealt with more speedily and there would not have been such a need for the to-ing and fro-ing that has taken place in the past year. I wish to make two or three points about the directive, mainly arising out of the need for definition. The first relates to scope.
I should like to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) about business travel. I believe that it was never intended to bring business travel into this holiday directive. However, I recognise the great difficulties in definition. I suggest that when my hon. Friend goes to Brussels he regards it as though it were a suit of clothes. One can have either a bespoke suit of clothes or one can buy one off the peg. Bespoke business travel is when a business man orders individual, special travel requirements which should not be covered by the directive. However, if there were business travel agents or operatives advertising package business travel of a standard nature to a standard destination, those arrangements should be swept into the terms of the directive.
There is a need to define accurately what is a package holiday. In the United Kingdom, we tend to think that travel is an essential part of a package holiday. We do not recognise the differences between a package holiday in this country and on the continent. Many people in continental countries do not regard travel as part of the package. They book their accommodation and excursions but make their own travel arrangements, as we see when we are foolish enough to travel in France at the end of July or the end of August. Many Frenchmen book a package holiday but make their own travel arrangements.
As I understand it, under the directive two out of three categories—travel, accommodation, excursions—will constitute the basis of a package holiday. It is important to remember, therefore, that it goes a little wider than we at first appreciated. Someone booking a cottage in the Lake District with a little pony trekking included will be subject to the requirements of the directive and will receive the protection that it offers.
A further aspect is the need to define an organiser. As I understand it, he is someone who organises package holidays on a regular basis. Immediately, we run into the problem of defining "regular". My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has already drawn


attention to the possible spread of that definition and to closed groups, such as someone taking scouts on their annual holiday or a local clergyman taking people to Lourdes. That definition must be clearly understood so that people know whether they are protected by the directive.
Another major aspect which must be considered comes under article 5. The Minister must be congratulated on bringing the article more into line with United Kingdom law. The reverse burden of proof is removed, so there is a requirement to show negligence. That offers a defence to any liability such as force majeure. It is important that, wherever possible, we remove the element of doubt from the directive so that people know exactly where they stand. I do not want woolly definitions which allow people to change their interpretation as things develop.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) made some points with which I agreed and, he will not be surprised to hear, many with which I did not. I should like to point out the dangers of the superficial attraction of, and his enthusiasm for, on-the-spot arbitration or treatment when one is abroad. The holidaymaker would be far better served seeking redress against the travel operator back in the United Kingdom in a slightly calmer and more reasoned atmosphere. He would do better to progress his case through the necessary procedures rather than trying to do so in a great rush in a foreign country, where language may also be a problem.
Much reference has been made to the new ABTA codes, which have been approved by the Office of Fair Trading. They offer improved protection for the consumer and show a steady uplift in standards. Many holidaymakers and possibly some hon. Members do not appreciate that there is already a procedure whereby people who have a feeling of grievance can get independent redress. If they feel that they have an objection or complaint, provided that they booked through an ABTA agent, they can go to the conciliation service, and if that fails they have the opportunity to go to the independent arbitration system administrated by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators with the cost subsidised by ABTA.
I understand from the figures given to me that in 1988 some 411 cases were referred, of which 320 were found in favour of the consumer. As I have said, it is an independent system and I understand that the costs are subsidised by ABTA members.

Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the important point about the procedures that are available. He referred, correctly, to two procedures—conciliation which, with great respect, is not independent because it is funded by ABTA, and arbitration which is, indeed, independent. If it is such a good procedure, however, why is there no travel bible to which an individual can refer to see past cases and judge whether there is a precedent and to see what level of compensation might be payable or whether it is frivolous? I understand that seven fully trained lawyers undertake this work, but that each works in a vacuum without any published

records. If the system of independent arbitrators is to continue, does my hon. Friend commend the idea of their having the benefit of past judgments?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes his point, but he has pre-empted the next stage of the process, to which I was about to refer in passing. There has been much reference to the idea of an ombudsman. I know that ABTA is examining the need to revamp or reorganise the arbitration system. To that end, it has called in independent experts to advise on the effectiveness of the arbitration and how it could be improved. It is not for me to pre-empt the findings, but no doubt, in the fulness of time, the independent auditors will make their report.
In March 1988 the then draft directive estimated the package holiday market at 25 million. A series of figures have been quoted and each time they have increased. The figures given to me, however, outbid the lot because I understand that the package holiday business in West Germany totals about 18 million holidays, in the United Kingdom it is just under 14 million and the rest of the Community makes up 6 million. We are therefore talking about 37 million package holidays per year. The sheer size of the market demands the protection of a directive across the whole of the EEC. In reading the directive and all the changes that have taken place, I ask the House to endorse the Government's view as encapsulated in the motion.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Every hon. Member who has spoken has had a great deal to say about the directive itself. I do not want to say a great deal about it because the points have been well covered. Listening to most of the speeches made me realise that I am rather lucky that our family goes on holiday only to either Scotland or Pakistan, where problems simply do not arise.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the point that he made at the end of his speech about article 100A of the Single European Act when he seemed to speak faster than during the rest of his speech, thus giving me the impression that something significant was happening. When I looked around me and saw the smiling faces, I realised that something dramatic had happened. The Minister knows that the legal advice given to the Government and the Select Committee on European Legislation is that there is no question that this could reasonably be regarded as an article 100A proposal.
The legal advice given to the Select Committee on European Legislation on the directive was:
The internal market element is insignificant—or even theoretical, if one looks for evidence about just how the proposal would affect 'the free movement of goods, persons, services … … If an element of such dimensions is sufficient to found recourse to Article 100A, then the scope of that Article is virtually limitless. Neither the context of nor the background to Article 100A suggests that this could be right.
Some people may think that that is simply an attempt to find a legal quibble. I was fascinated that the Minister has spent all his time corresponding or talking to officials since I raised the point. He must feel an element of guilt about it. I never thought that the day would come when the Minister, of all people, would apparently serve the interests of people, such as Mr. Delors, who propose to expand the extent to which the Community makes laws which apply to countries and leave domestic parliaments out.
The Minister must be aware that, when the Single European Act was passed, it was made abundantly clear to the House and to our people that some internal market issues would be decided by majority vote but that the majority of issues would be decided by unanimous vote. The Minister must be abundantly clear from all that has been said by legal advisers and on the Single European Act that this is not a 100A directive. At the end of his speech he said, "Yes, we had doubts about it in the past, but on reflection we think that it may be a 100A." If the Government cave in on this one and do not put up a battle on article 100A, the House of Commons may as well shut up shop and call itself a county council. Mr. Jacques Delors has said that in his view 80 per cent. of all legislation will be made through the Community's non-democratic institutions. If we allow this directive to go through under article 100A without a battle, the figure will be well above 90 per cent.
Why have the Government apparently changed their mind? Will the Minister be willing to go along on 21 December and fight or will he say, "The directive has been moderated so we shall not fight"? I hope that he will regard the matter as serious because it is desperately serious for our democracy. He knows that the directive cannot be passed under article 100A. If the Government are not prepared to battle on this, I wonder if they are willing to battle on anything.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have come here at this late hour to guide me in my deliberations on this important matter. It is important, if for no other reason, than that so many British people avail themselves of the holidays offered by our package holiday industry. As always when EC directives are considered by the Council of Ministers, we shall end up—if at all—with a directive which will inevitably be the result of a compromise among 12 different member states.
In this case some member states, such as Britain, send many of their citizens on package holidays each year. Other states receive them. Given that difference of perspective, the House will not be surprised that it has been difficult to reach consensus on the directive. If we end up with a directive, I counsel hon. Members that it may not meet all their exact requirements. That may explain why, should a directive emerge from the Council of Ministers, it may be less than ideal and may not meet all the views expressed this evening. I assure hon. Members that we shall endeavour to take account, as far as we can, of the reasonable points that they have made.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and I may have to agree to disagree about almost every aspect of this matter. That difference starts with the industry, which the hon. Gentleman painted in a black way. I have an upbeat and optimistic view of that industry, and he was right to quote what I have said unashamedly about it. It has served our people well and it provides a large number of holidays for many people. Perhaps I should declare an interest as I take a package holiday every year. I have already booked it for next year and I have always been happy with those holidays.

Sir Anthony Grant: Did my hon. Friend holiday in Acapulco?

Mr. Forth: I never got to Acapulco. At the time that I might have been there I was in Brussels representing Her Majesty's Government and our people to the best of my ability in the Council of Ministers.
Although I have often praised the British holiday industry, I am not blind to its faults. There may be a place for a directive of the kind under consideration now so that perceived loopholes either in our law or in the more general provisions relating to the holiday industry can be filled in. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South when he talks about a crisis of confidence. I share his praise, however, for the ABTA code of practice, which has been updated and improved. That code takes our industry a stage further and the latest code provides standards in most respects superior to those provided by the directive.
The hon. Gentleman was busy criticising me for single-handedly removing most of the directive's effective provisions. He appeared to forget that I sit in solemn conclave with representatives from 11 other member states when I consider such things. I must reach agreement with them. Whether the directive has been watered down, strengthened or whatever is the result of what 12 Ministers from 12 different member states have been able to agree.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: When the Minister introduced legislation on this matter, will he embody in it the higher standards of the ABTA code, which we both believe to be desirable?

Mr. Forth: No, I will not give that assurance. If the directive is agreed and put in place by the Community we shall be obliged, as a member state, to put the appropriate regulations in place. That answers one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). We will endeavour to fill in the details that he has identified as missing from the directive. If those details are not clarified once the directive is agreed we shall have to clarify them in our regulations. We would attempt to do so responsibly—no doubt after consultation with the industry and consumer groups as is our practice when seeking to make regulations.
I cannot give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South as I envisage that our regulations would reflect the wording of the directive. If the industry chose to continue to have a code of practice that went beyond that directive I would welcome and support that decision. I see no need, however, to legislate to give effect to that code. It is far more effective when it is operated on a voluntary basis.
I give my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) more or less the assurance that he seeks. It is true that business travel was never intended to be part of the directive. It was fairly late in the day when we identified the danger that my hon. Friend correctly pointed out and which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West. We have always had serious reservations about that matter and I raised it at the Council of Ministers. We expect that the final text to the directive, should it be agreed, will have attached to it a minute statement by the Council and the Commission to clarify that the directive will not cover
business trips which involve separate bookings of transport and hotel accommodation which do not constitute elements of a pre-arranged package, even though they are invoiced simultaneously.


That is Community jargon for saying, broadly speaking, that business travel will not be within the directive's scope. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). She was absolutely right to bring this tragic constituency case to the attention of the House this evening. I cannot give her any comfort in terms of the wording of the present directive, but I draw to her attention the words in the new ABTA code, endorsed by the Office of Fair Trading. It says:
A tour operator shall include as a term of any contract relating to the sale of their foreign inclusive holidays or tours—
I come to the important words—
a provision stating that every assistance shall be afforded by them to a client who through misadventure suffers illness, personal injury or death during the period of their holiday arising out of an activity which does not form part of the foreign inclusive holiday arrangement".
ABTA provides a form of words that may have assisted the hon. Lady's constituent had they been in place at the time. I hope that they will now help anyone who finds him or herself in the same tragic circumstances. I invite the hon. Lady to take up the point with ABTA to see whether it can satisfy her. If it cannot, she should by all means come back to me to see whether I can assist her.

Mrs. Golding: I thank the Minister for that assurance. I took up the matter with ABTA, which was helpful. Thomson's made quite a large ex gratia payment, but that does not solve the problem of the pathologist's difficulty in establishing the cause of death. It means a lot to families to know why people have died, and the EC could put a lot more pressure on pathologists to bring them up to the standard of those in this country.

Mr. Forth: I understand the hon. Lady's important point. The standard of pathology available in member states in the Community is not a matter for this directive. The hon. Lady might wish to raise the matter with the Commission through her Member of the European Parliament or pursue it with the Department of Health. I do not think that the point is for me or the directive.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend has just referred to clause 483 of the ABTA code. I understand that that is a voluntary assistance package of up to £5,000 when an incident occurs which is outside the normal run of events.

Mr. Forth: That ties in with what the hon. Lady has just said and shows that we must not forget, when considering this matter, that we are fortunate to have in this country an industry that has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide a voluntary code and mechanism whereby complaints can be dealt with. Even the industry and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) would say that the mechanism has never been perfect, but the industry has been, and still is, working to see whether it can be improved. We should encourage and value that, and praise, not criticise, it.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), as always, has shown an enormous amount of knowledge and experience of this matter. He asked me some relevant and, as usual, difficult questions which I shall do my best

to answer. If I fail to answer all his points, I shall write to him to give him a proper answer, but I shall pick up one or two of his points.
My hon. Friend made general points about flight and date changes which, I think, are covered under article 4, paragraph 5, of the directive in its latest wording. It says:
if any of the essential terms of the package are … altered by the organiser before departure, the consumer may, within seven days of receiving notification of the change:—either withdraw from the contract without penalty,—or accept a rider to the contract specifying the alterations made and their impact on the price.
That goes some way towards answering his points. I should like to look at it again to see whether it is completely adequate, but there is a recognition of my hon. Friend's fair points about the distress that can often be caused, usually to elderly people or those who are not as robust as hon. Members undoubtedly are. To be here at this hour of the night they have to be robust—but I shall not explore that further.
My hon. Friend then made an important point about bonding and insurance. I refer him again to article 7 of the directive, which says:
The organiser and/or retailer party to the contract shall provide sufficient evidence of ability: in the event of insolvency, to refund money paid over and to repatriate the consumer, and—to cover compensation for losses suffered as a result of the failure to perform or the improper performance of the contract.
So the directive requires that a reasonable amount of cover be provided, although it is right to leave it to the discretion of the operators to decide how to do that.
Although ABTA provides cover for ABTA members, if the directive were agreed, it would extend that safety net to all operators.

Mr. Gregory: I think that my hon. Friend has partly missed the point. I was talking about non-ABTA members who subsequently go into liquidation, and I gave the example of a firm based in Yorkshire which had gone into liquidation as recently as September. There is little point in pursuing it through the courts if it has already gone into liquidation.

Mr. Forth: Yes, but the article that I read out refers to ability in the event of insolvency to refund money paid over or to repatriate. That covers my hon. Friend's point.
My hon. Friend the Member for York also referred to the ombudsman. His reference to a "rapid and inexpensive means" has been dropped from the directive; it did not survive the rigorous examination of the Council of Ministers. However, I endorse what he said about the principle of an ombudsman and I hope that the industry will urgently press on towards introducing another mechanism for dealing with complaints.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West is an expert in this area, and I acknowledge his contribution to guiding ABTA towards a positive approach to this directive. I have already answered his point about business travel when discussing the scope of the directive. Pony trekking and cottages are matters of great concern to at least one other member state—I am sure that he can guess which one—and I hope that his point about them and their organisation on a regular basis will be covered while putting the regulations in place. His points may not be entirely covered in the directive, even when it is complete.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is unflagging in his anxiety to ensure that we do


not become supine in the face of the onslaught on our sovereignty by the institutions of the EC. I am not sure that this is the right issue on which to take a stand, however. My hon. Friend spoke as usual with great passion, and he knows very well that I have shared a number of his views over the years about unnecessary extensions of the Community's competence. My hon. Friend is here, as he always is, to use the opportunity that the House has been given to examine the matter. It is not as though we are trying to slip this through on the quiet, undebated. The House is discharging its responsibility and has been given the chance to do so, and I hope that my hon. Friend acknowledges that.
My hon. Friend asked whether the treaty base was suitable in this case. I have given that much thought and have come to the conclusion, with some reluctance, that this may be a legitimate internal market matter. This is an important business which involves millions of people throughout the Community and which crosses national boundaries. Some member states send people on holiday; others receive them. It is right that the Community should try to provide reasonable safeguards, given the movements of people and the transaction of Community business across these borders. He and I may not be able to agree on that, but if he gives the matter some thought he will see that it is not the matter upon which to fight the final battle on sovereignty.
I have tried, perhaps at excessive length, to answer the questions asked in the debate. Having heard my replies, I hope that hon. Members will see fit to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5382/88 and 7996/89 relating to package travel; and endorses the Government view that any proposal must strike a balance between consumer protection and the need to avoid undue burdens on the travel industry, which would adversely affect the price and range of holidays available to consumers.

PETITIONS

Opencast Mine (Gateshead)

Mr. John McWilliam: The humble petition of residents of Gateshead metropolitan borough council sheweth
That the proposal to opencast mine coal in the area to the South of Marley hill and remove the coal by road would result in the net destruction of jobs, cause blight to the countryside and congest the already inadequate roads.
It gives me great pleasure to present the petition. The hole that is proposed will be enormous, as will the damage to industrial development which the two local authorities propose. The roads are totally inadequate. I am grateful for this opportunity to present the petition on behalf of my constituents.

To lie upon the Table.

Deaf People (Broadcasting)

Mr. Allen McKay: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House I wish to present a petition not only on my behalf and that of my constituents, but also on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) and his constituents. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is ill and cannot present his petition. The petition contains the signatures of 1,500 of our constituents and relates to deaf people and television. The broadcasting authorities are not providing complete access to television for deaf viewers by providing, for example, subtitles or sign language. At least 4 million people are affected.
Deaf viewers are equal members of the general public and are entitled to equal access to television programmes. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I gratefully present to the House on their behalf the petition asking for the equal access that they rightly deserve.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and the people of Barnsley about facilities for deaf people in relation to broadcasting. The petition shows that broadcasters are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers through the use of subtitling, teletext or sign language. This affects about 4 million viewers who have a right to equal access to broadcasts. It gives me great pleasure to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Like my two hon. Friends the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), I also have a petition, signed by more than 300 constituents and residents of Coventry, who are concerned, as I am, about the inadequate provision of choice for those who are deaf or hard of hearing, who cannot listen to radio and who miss 90 per cent. of


television programmes—those which are not subtitled. It is appropriate to present the petition on the day when the Broadcasting Bill received its Second Reading. Clause 32 of that Bill refers to the minimum number of hours per week during which programmes with subtitles can be broadcast. I hope that the petition will be noticed by those hon. Members who will serve on the Standing Committee.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the people of the constituency of Coventry, South-East and elsewhere sheweth that the broadcasters are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers, for example with subtitles or sign language.
The number of viewers affected are at least 4 million.
Deaf viewers, as equal members of the general public are entitled to equal access to television programmes.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using Teletext subtitles, sign language or other means, and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
I endorse the petition and associate myself with all its sentiments, although not with the mediaeval language in which they have to be framed.

To lie upon the Table.

Unitary Taxation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Michael Grylls: I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will not take it amiss if I welcome him to the debate as the seventh in a distinguished line of Financial Secretaries who have dealt with this problem for 14 years. It has been the longest-running issue that Parliament has seen for a long time. This is the third Adjournment debate in which I have had the opportunity to raise the issue, and that in itself speaks of the longevity of the issue.
Because of this history, there is no need to spend any time in describing what the problem is over unitary tax. Its application has been internationally condemned as an iniquitous form of corporate taxation. It has been condemned by Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, the United States, the OECD, the EEC, the US Administration and Her Majesty's Government. In the House, it is very much an all-party issue, as I am sure you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been condemned by all parties. That condemnation has been refreshed today by the tabling of a new early-day motion, which has already been signed by 150 hon. Members. I think that more will sign in the coming weeks. We have applied our minds to it over the years, but it has yet to be solved.
This is a timely moment to have the debate because the US Administration and the British Government are about to start a major review of the progress on the issue. If the review is only about progress, it may be only a short meeting, but I hope that it will include discussion of future action, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will participate in the review. We need to assess how we can take this matter forward, and nail it once and for all.
Whatever may be said about what has happened in California, it still uses unitary taxation on a worldwide basis. It has introduced a limited form of legislation that allows companies, on the payment of a fee, to elect to be taxed not on a worldwide basis, but on the basis of a water's edge method. Electing to pay the fee for something that is wrong, and has been condemned internationally, is nothing less than disgraceful. That is the morality of Dick Turpin, the famous highwayman, who said, "Give me your money, and then you will be allowed to proceed." That is what has happened in California. Therefore, I am glad that the British Government and the United States Administration have firmly recorded their opposition to the legislation in California because it does not deal with the problem and kill it off once and for all.
There is one glimmer on the horizon. New proposed legislation in California would abolish the election fee and ease some of the other concerns of British companies operating in California. If the legislation is to have any chance of moving forward, it will need the active support of the United Kingdom Government, who must lean on the United States Administration in Washington, to encourage and help them to ensure that the legislation does what it must to be effective.
British businesses are concerned about the legislation, and they do not like, and have to deal with, such factors as the length of the election period, which they believe is


still too long. The details of information—the spreadsheet that they have to provide to the state of California—mean an enormous amount of administrative, non-productive bureaucratic work for the companies, which should not have to do it. They also do not like the ability of the state of California arbitrarily to deny them access to the water's edge solution. They do not think that that is right.
At the moment, the legislation is flawed, and British business operating in the United States, with important investments for our companies, do not consider that the problem has been solved. The Californian legislation in 1986 was no solution, and we have proof of this.
A recent survey carried out by the Unitary Tax Campaign, which has led this issue and been the driving force behind the move for reform, had 51 replies to a survey of British businesses operating in California. Of the 51, 42 stated that unitary tax was extremely onerous. Yet only six were prepared to opt out of unitary taxation. That was because current legislation was much too risky. That result—six out of 51—shows a complete lack of confidence in what California has put forward as a so-called solution. It shows that the so-called solution to current Californian law is nothing less than a sham, and we should not be afraid to say so.
Why are companies not electing to get out of worldwide reporting and to move towards a water's edge solution? I think that it is principally because they are opposed in principle in unitary tax on a worldwide basis. They believe, I think rightly, that if they support current legislation, they will support legislation that they think is wrong.
Companies object to the fee. It cannot be right to pay a fee to do something that is entirely normal in every other civilised industrial country. Companies do not like it and they will not elect because of the uncertainties. California's record as a taxing authority does not inspire them with any great confidence.
Over the years, we have returned to this issue time and time again. The campaign to try to get it resolved has been led by Great Britain through the CBI and, above all, by the Unitary Tax Campaign, a grouping of leading companies in Britain that has lobbied hard and long in America to resolve the issue. It is time that we told our friends in Washington and Sacremento that 14 years is too long and that it is time that the issure was resolved. Let us tell them that the partience of the House is running out, as California refuses stubbornly to resolve it. After 14 years it is time for us to be tough. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to tell the House that the Government are still much concerned about the issue, want to see it resolved and are prepared to introduce tough action to see that that happens.
We have effective leverage in our hands, called section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I hope that at least we shall hear tonight that that section will remain firmly on the statute book until unitary tax on a worldwide basis is abolished in America once and for all. It is important that section 812 remains, to show the Americans that we are determined to resolve the issue. When the tax is abolished, the section can be removed from the statute book, because it will have done its job.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us that he will participate in ministerial meetings to show the Americans that we mean business. The House has been considering this issue for too long. Clearly 14 years is too long. I hope that this is the last Adjournment debate that I shall ever have to have on the matter, and

that we shall see the abolition of unitary tax, which has been so damaging to so many British companies over the years.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: This is a timely debate on an extremely important matter. The entire House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) for having raised it this evening. I do not wish to detain the House for long, because the Financial Secretary's reply is the important part of the debate and I look forward to hearing it. I want, however, to underscore a number of matters that have been raised by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West.
First, California's unitary tax regime as applied to non-American companies is no more acceptable to the Opposition than it is to the Government. It is unacceptable that it has continued for 14 years. The issue is not one for the United Kingdom alone. American's other friends, traders, investors and partners all have a similar interest in reaching a solution, but perhaps it is for the Government to put themselves at the head of organising concerned representations on a international basis.
My understanding is that the American Administration are committed to limiting unitary taxation to the water's edge by federal legislation, if necessary. I do not regard the present fee-paying option as anything like a fair or satisfactory settlement. It certainly does not meet the Administration's stated objectives. It smacks of protection money and nothing more.
In 1985, the British Government issued the statement:
In the light of the President's statement, the Government will enter into negotiations with the Administration to amend the UK-US double taxation convention so as to prevent the application of the unitary method of taxation to UK companies.
I understand that that statement has yet to be given effect. It should be, and soon.
During debates on the 1985 Finance Bill, there was discussion about whether new clause 27 should be inserted. It was, with all-party support. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) set out the Opposition's position, and it remains the same. I refer to what is now section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
The present unitary tax arrangements in California amount to no more than a sophisticated and populist protectionist device. I accept, but regret, the necessity of inserting what was new clause 27 into the 1985 Bill. It was done not because we thought it right for its own sake, but as a response to a very unfair form of taxation being carried out by a country with which we otherwise have close and friendly relationships.
Although now the law of the land, the provisions of that new clause have not been applied. I must make it clear that an incoming Labour Government would reserve their right to apply the clause, whether or not the Government do so. If it is on the statute book, it can be applied. When the Financial Secretary responds, I hope that he will agree to send a message to our friends across the Atlantic that is slightly firmer than just restating the fact that unitary taxation is not cricket. He should do a little more than that.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) on securing his third Adjournment debate on the important subject of worldwide unitary taxation and also on the lucid and forceful way in which he expressed his opposition to that form of taxation.
Worldwide unitary taxation is very much a subject that my hon. Friend has made his own. He has campaigned tirelessly on both sides of the Atlantic for some years and it is a tribute to him that he has united both sides of the House in pursuit of his campaign. That is shown both by the early-day motion, which has about 150 signatures from hon. Members of all parties, opposing worldwide unitary taxation, and by the helpful and constructive speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on behalf of the Opposition. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which strengthens the Government's position in negotiating on this issue.
I pay tribute to the Unitary Tax Campaign, especially its chairman Peter Welch. Since it was founded in 1978, it has dedicated itself solely to the elimination of worldwide unitary tax. Its members include a substantial majority of the United Kingdom corporate direct investors in the United States.
I must straight away reaffirm both the Government's opposition to worldwide unitary tax and their support for the aims and objectives of the Unitary Tax Campaign and other bodies which have campaigned against worldwide unitary tax. The British Government are opposed to worldwide unitary taxation because it is contrary to accepted international tax principles, manifestly unfair and damaging to international investment. It is contrary to the accepted international principles, which indicate that each country should levy tax only in respect of profits which arise in that country's jurisdiction. It is manifestly unfair, since it can result in international companies paying tax to more than one Administration in respect of the same profits—and even paying taxes in a country where they are making losses simply because they are making profits elsewhere, in another country. It is damaging because it is bound to discourage the flow of international investment, which is mutually beneficial to host and source countries, as well as undermining normal relations between tax authorities.
That is why the British Government have pursued their opposition to worldwide unitary taxation as vigorously as possible through all appropriate channels—directly to the Californian state authorities, jointly with the United States Federal Government whose support in this matter we greatly welcome; in conjunction with our European Community partners; in supporting British companies in their court actions; and in taking legislative power to strengthen our bargaining position. Those pressures and the sustained work of the Unitary Tax Campaign have not been without effect. Barclays won a notable victory when the Californian Superior Court ruled its worldwide unitary taxation unconstitutional. Unfortunately, however, the United States legal mills grind slow and the final outcome is far from sure.
Another success of a kind is that California has so far taken two steps to meet the widespread concerns of international investors. First, in 1986 it passed legislation to allow companies to elect not to be taxed on a worldwide

unitary basis, but companies which so elected had to pay fees and were committed to the election for a period of years and the Californian authorities still retained the right to impose worldwide unitary tax in certain circumstances —for example, if they found any of the voluminous data that they require unsatisfactory. Secondly, in 1988 California passed legislation which reduced the election period to five years and made certain other rules more workable.
Despite those changes, the Californian tax regime remains profoundly unsatisfactory. It is not acceptable that British companies should have to pay a fee to elect to be taxed on the normal "water's edge" basis. Nor is it acceptable that after paying such a fee they may still be deprived of that right if they cannot comply to the state's satisfaction with its onerous requirements.
Consequently, we have kept up the pressure and in the last year alone the Government have supported British companies in court with amicus briefs, and played a prominent part in the Community's demarche on unitary tax to the US Treasury. That elicited a potentially useful response—that the state's use of unitary tax
remains a serious concern
and
may constitute an impermissible interference in the conduct of the nation's foreign affairs.
Finally, we sent a senior member of our Washington embassy to accompany the British delegation to California in connection with legislation being prepared there last summer.
Last March, my predecessor announced that we were prepared to defer initiating action under the potentially retaliatory legislation that the House passed in 1985, which would deny tax credits relating to dividends paid by US subsidiaries of companies with headquarters in states with unitary taxation. We did this in recognition of the progress that had been made towards resolving the unitary tax issue. We further made it clear that if it became necessary to take such action after the end of December 1989 it would not apply to dividends paid on or before that date.
My hon. Friend asked for confirmation that the Government intended to retain the potentially retaliatory legislation that the House passed in 1985. I gladly state, quite unequivocally, that at present there is no question of the repeal of that legislation.
Earlier this year my right hon. Friend who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury proposed that, in the light of subsequent progress, we should review the situation jointly with the United States Treasury later this year. United Kingdom officials have, in consultation with the Unitary Tax Campaign and other representative bodies, initiated that review.
The survey information to which my hon. Friend referred will be of great value during the review. The question of any further undertaking not to act under the 1985 legislation will be considered as part of the review. Hon. Members may also rest assured that the anxieties that they have expressed today will be brought to the attention of the United States Government. I shall forward to the US Government the report of today's debate.
A couple of years ago, the Governor of California opened a trade office in London to attract British business to California. The United Kingdom already has substantial investment in California and there is every sign that it wishes to continue and to increase such investment. I therefore urge the California state authorities to think


again if they want the flow of investment from Britain to California to continue. I urge them to abolish completely the election fee and substantially to reduce the election period and the compliance burden of foreign companies so

that British industry will once again be able to take its full part in investing in California, to the benefit of all concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Two o'clock.